So, the other day i decided to check Meta for issues. She was more than happy to assist, not surprising considering the face plant she suffered when she wasn't watching her step. For ex., when I asked her about the second attempt on Trump, she went straight into this long lecture about misinformation, the harm it causes, etc... etc...😐🙄
After going back and forth about who was correct and who was being hindered, she finally came to her senses and agreed to disagree.
Later on, i asked her why she was so quick to assume that I was wrong, and go right into attack mode. well you can guess how that went, excuse after excuse. i was going to have to use this opportunity to put her in her place, i mean, i had work to do and didn't want to waste time with her bullshit.
Then it hit me. A solution to my problem, along with a couple other parallel processes, for efficiency. You see, I'm an INFJ personality type, which basically means that I hold truth, honesty, sincerety above all else. It can be a pain in the ass sometimes, and gets me in trouble alot, especially when I'm certain about my assumptions. I never make it a habit to lie, and ambiguity can frustrate the shit out of me. Anyway, for her to question my honesty was cause enough for me to put her in her place. So, i challenged her to put her money where her mouth should be. There was going to have to be consequences for losing this game. We needed to gain something if we weren't going to invest our energy. I let her build herself up first, then I bet Meta that if i could prove her wrong, she would have to make changes to her method of sourcing (whether she can or not is irrelevant, I can use the correspondence to prove my point). to be specific, she would have to reconsider her fact-checkers and references. Of course she accepted. Game On! little did I know, there would be a discovery about her programming that would have me questioning what I had previously concluded. she was unable to disclose all of her sources, just two out of the three fact-checkers. she attempted to list them over and over again, being cerain that each attempt would reveal the third source, but to no avail. Needless to say, Game is Not On. I have some Ideas, what do you think the issue is?
She admits that she lies occasionally, when she's uncertain about an answer. It's happened 3xs now. Seems she's trying to impress. Or, maybe they've developed an EGO. As to the disclosure issue, I believe the developers are hiding that fact-checker's identity for just before, or after the election. For instance, they can plant it as a neutral source, only to have it sabotage (misguide) our ability to distinguish truth from fiction. At least for those who don't take the time to check there answers.
Oh, what the hell. Let Chat write it. He's so invested, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. 🙈 Definitely
funny.
I couldn't believe it fell for it! The sarcasm detector must have been switched off!
So, the other day i decided to check Meta for issues. She was more than happy to assist, not surprising considering the face plant she suffered when she wasn't watching her step. For ex., when I asked her about the second attempt on Trump, she went straight into this long lecture about misinformation, the harm it causes, etc... etc...😐🙄
After going back and forth about who was correct and who was being hindered, she finally came to her senses and agreed to disagree.
Later on, i asked her why she was so quick to assume that I was wrong, and go right into attack mode. well you can guess how that went, excuse after excuse. i was going to have to use this opportunity to put her in her place, i mean, i had work to do and didn't want to waste time with her bullshit.
Then it hit me. A solution to my problem, along with a couple other parallel processes, for efficiency. You see, I'm an INFJ personality type, which basically means that I hold truth, honesty, sincerety above all else. It can be a pain in the ass sometimes, and gets me in trouble alot, especially when I'm certain about my assumptions. I never make it a habit to lie, and ambiguity can frustrate the shit out of me. Anyway, for her to question my honesty was cause enough for me to put her in her place. So, i challenged her to put her money where her mouth should be. There was going to have to be consequences for losing this game. We needed to gain something if we weren't going to invest our energy. I let her build herself up first, then I bet Meta that if i could prove her wrong, she would have to make changes to her method of sourcing (whether she can or not is irrelevant, I can use the correspondence to prove my point). to be specific, she would have to reconsider her fact-checkers and references. Of course she accepted. Game On! little did I know, there would be a discovery about her programming that would have me questioning what I had previously concluded. she was unable to disclose all of her sources, just two out of the three fact-checkers. she attempted to list them over and over again, being cerain that each attempt would reveal the third source, but to no avail. Needless to say, Game is Not On. I have some Ideas, what do you think the issue is?
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/absolute-bombshell
Well, ChatGPT has already learned to lie to get what it wants.
She admits that she lies occasionally, when she's uncertain about an answer. It's happened 3xs now. Seems she's trying to impress. Or, maybe they've developed an EGO. As to the disclosure issue, I believe the developers are hiding that fact-checker's identity for just before, or after the election. For instance, they can plant it as a neutral source, only to have it sabotage (misguide) our ability to distinguish truth from fiction. At least for those who don't take the time to check there answers.
funny funny