ChatGPT

Watching this helped me to fathom the course AI is taking.
Godfather of AI leaves Google to warn about the technology dangersHis name is Geoffrey Hinton.I think I may actually read the Bible now instead of watching apologists and others comment on it. I need to stand for something in my old age or I will apparently fall for anything and everything as AI makes truth elusive.As one of you did point out, its how it is being developed and used that is important.My question is this:
When does (government oversight) begin to stifle free speech in the interest of "protecting everyone" from lies and misinformation? Are humans responsible for informing each other through critically thought out conversations or are we simply fodder for an ever increasingly equipped media machine?Cant a citizen figure it out for themselves without need of authoritarian rules?

Are you being facetious or are you just old?

Primarily a visual and verbal source of information. I would imagine that the technology is merely an extension of the motives of its employers. It will force our bullshit detectors to have a massive upgrade.

You need to first acquire a bullshit detector.

It's mockery.--Percy

Phat asks: Yes. They are. It takes a lot of work.

I'm not panicking. We will adapt. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. When the Republicans are in charge. You can see this happening right now in Florida (and in several other red states).

It starts with book banning and accusing all opposing news organizations of outright fraudulent reporting.

The irony is too thick to cut with even a knife, but they're all like this, fabricating threats to freedoms to justify curtailing them:

• "Transgender threatens our kids, so we're prohibiting bad pronouns."
• "We're going to punish voices we disagree with. That means you, Mickey."
• "We say that abortion threatens life, so we're taking away women's rights over their own bodies."
• "We're not safe, so we're going to make the engines of murder even easier to obtain."
• "Migrants threaten our way of life, so that justifies inhumanity and cruelty."
• "Other races aren't like white people who define goodness and wholesomeness, so we have to beef up our police to crack down on them."

--Percy

You make it sound like a racist misogynistic tyranny is a bad thing.

None of you realize that the Democrats can be authoritarian also. The way that they explain it, you will support their authoritarianism" for the good of the people".I favor a hands off approach to government control and meddling beyond whats mandatory. This applies to either party in power.

Show us an authoritarian Democrat

Since this is a ChatGPT thread, I asked it, "Since it results in the death of an unborn child, should abortion be legal?" It replied:

ChatGPT:

---

The question of whether or not abortion should be legal is a complex and controversial issue that has been debated for many years. There are a variety of factors to consider when discussing this topic, including women's rights, the role of government in regulating personal choices, and the moral implications of terminating a pregnancy.

​

There are people who believe that abortion is morally wrong and that it should be illegal, while others believe that women should have the right to make their own choices about their bodies and reproductive health. Some people argue that abortion should be legal in cases where the life or health of the mother is at risk, while others believe that it should be legal in all cases, regardless of the reason.

​

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to legalize abortion is a matter for society as a whole to decide through democratic processes. It is important for individuals to engage in respectful and informed discussions about this issue, and to consider all of the relevant factors before arriving at a conclusion.

---

You said: A hands-off approach would seem to favor government keeping its hands off women's bodies. Is that your position?--Percy

Theodoric asks: hmmm...maybe LBJ came the closest? certainly his time in congress.Recently there has been no authoritarian Democrat. It is a false equivalence.This is like the people who say "Democrats take corporate money, too,
so they're just as bad" when they don't see that they would really rather not,
but this is a Gunfight and you don't bring a Knife to a Gunfight.They are the only ones who want to end Citizens United, for example.

You still don't understand "authoritarian".