Random ChatGpt questions

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I recently listened to a podcast - interview with a professor specialized in AI. ( no point in linking the source, it was in German). She called AI a “ language tool” and set it apart from google as a search tool. The interviewer asked about the use of an AI app that constructs historic stories as a means to help her 18 year old son to learn more and be more interested in history which he needs for his graduation. The prof said that unless the son does independent fact checking, she wouldn’t recommend getting knowledge from AI alone. AI s purpose is to engage, not to inform and it needs the human to interpret and judge. It pretends to “ understand” but it does not have emotions. Also interesting that she said that this is a first for humankind to have created something that communicates but doesn’t have emotions- and we humans don’t really know how to deal with that.
 
If intellect is placed in an alien language ... how to deal with the resulting emotions?

Let me count the ways ... can you imagine the wise losing it ... or would they learn something from the experience?

So it goes ... as Goethe, or goth! That's dark eh ... read into the inky matters ...
 
Interesting blog by a software engineer from Microsoft about his use of AI, both professional and personal. Like the SciShow piece, he points out the risk of AI playing to the audience and producing evidence to support any claim or any side of an argument without providing the balance from the other side. He has also had issues using it as a Google search, e.g. searching for restaurant recommendations it produced out of date information about a restaurant that had been closed for a couple years. For each area of use, he provides a rating in a grid after the discussion of that area of usage. Not definitive or anything, but interesting to hear the perspective of a regular AI user who has experience with it both professionally and personally and has some sound tech credentials.

How I use AI (Oct 2025)

AI has transformed how I code and do research. Here’s where it’s good and where it is lacking.
ben.stolovitz.com ben.stolovitz.com
 
Mendalla said:
Interesting blog by a software engineer from Microsoft about his use of AI, both professional and personal. Like the SciShow piece, he points out the risk of AI playing to the audience and producing evidence to support any claim or any side of an argument without providing the balance from the other side. He has also had issues using it as a Google search, e.g. searching for restaurant recommendations it produced out of date information about a restaurant that had been closed for a couple years. For each area of use, he provides a rating in a grid after the discussion of that area of usage. Not definitive or anything, but interesting to hear the perspective of a regular AI user who has experience with it both professionally and personally and has some sound tech credentials.

How I use AI (Oct 2025)

AI has transformed how I code and do research. Here’s where it’s good and where it is lacking.
ben.stolovitz.com ben.stolovitz.com
Click to expand...
Not always the case if the right questions are asked. There’s no valid other side to track 2 and expansion. The other side’s argument contradicts itself. And the contradictions are easy to spot. Takes willful human ignorance to ignore them. Which is what happened. So, though it may exist and be hard to get rid of - track 2 is still not legal according to our international stake in human rights or our own stated values and it’s not ethically valid. The “majority stakeholders” in this case were all the representative disability organizations in Canada who uphold our right to equality in society. Disabled people didn’t want it. The UN warned against it. It happened anyway and that’s wrong.
 
Last edited:
Even the idea that track 2 exists on the basis of life, liberty and security of person is wrong. It’s the opposite because living in a free society is different from dying because you can’t. Where’s the security? …arguing that it gives people equality when we’re the only minority group that can be considered for MAiD based on being in that group is wrong. It is not available to everyone. Only to people whose lives have been medically assessed to be less worthy even if they have years to live. If they believe their own lives are less worthy because they’re disabled and suffering from their perceived lack of worth, Canada has done something terribly wrong that they’d feel that way - and accountability would look like reversing track 2 rather than expanding it.

And ultimately this is happening because people would rather let Musk be a universal trillionaire than build a society that disabled people are fully accepted in according to universal human rights.
It’s true. Ask AI. Ask yourselves.
 
Last edited:
All I’m saying is AI was correct in my argument - it did present opposing views and those stated views are accurate for their content but still wrong - I could easily go back and highlight contradictions from the other side of it. Those contradictions have been present for years, whether AI summarizes them or not, and the reasons for opposing have been facts all along regardless of my AI’s summary of them.

There isn’t a valid “both sides” to every argument regardless of what AI presents.
 
Last edited:
Read for yourself. I asked the right questions - and then asked it to find contradictions in its own argument for the other side (I could already see them but it would take time to summarize myself). It did what I asked it to do. And its response is factually and ethically accurate.

Me:
Find the contradictions in support for track 2 MAiD based on this discussion.

AI:
The discussion surrounding Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada reveals several contradictions in the support for this policy, particularly when viewed through the historical lens of discrimination against marginalized groups, including individuals with disabilities. Here are some key contradictions:

1. **Autonomy vs. Vulnerability**: Proponents of Track 2 MAiD often emphasize the importance of individual autonomy and the right to choose death as a means to alleviate suffering. However, this focus on autonomy can conflict with the reality that many individuals who seek MAiD may feel like burdens to their families or society, raising questions about whether their choices are genuinely autonomous or influenced by societal pressures and feelings of inadequacy.

2. **Compassion vs. Coercion**: Supporters argue that MAiD is a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. Yet, this compassion can overlook the potential for coercion, particularly in a healthcare system that might inadequately address the needs of vulnerable populations. The historical context of coercive practices, such as those seen during the Nazi regime, warns against the normalization of state-sanctioned death, suggesting that what is framed as compassionate could lead to dangerous precedents.

3. **Inclusivity vs. Devaluation**: While the intention may be to include individuals with disabilities in end-of-life options, this inclusivity can paradoxically devalue their lives. By defining eligibility for MAiD in terms of disability or suffering, the policy risks sending a message that lives affected by disability are less worthy of support and care. This contradicts the principles of equality and dignity that many advocates for disability rights strive to uphold.

4. **Legal Protections vs. Historical Lessons**: The legal frameworks designed to protect marginalized groups from discrimination are often cited as safeguards against potential abuses of MAiD. However, the historical lessons of targeting vulnerable populations for euthanasia remind us that legal protections can be insufficient if societal attitudes and values do not prioritize the dignity and worth of all lives, particularly those deemed "less than" by prevailing standards of health and productivity.

5. **Societal Support vs. Systemic Failures**: Support for Track 2 MAiD may be predicated on the assumption that individuals have access to adequate healthcare and support services. Yet, systemic failures in healthcare, particularly for those with disabilities, can lead to a situation where individuals feel that MAiD is their only viable option. This contradiction highlights the need for robust healthcare systems that prioritize palliative care and support rather than offering assisted dying as a solution to suffering.

6. **Public Discourse vs. Individual Experiences**: Public support for MAiD may reflect a general acceptance of the policy as a compassionate choice. However, individual experiences—particularly among disabled individuals—often reveal a complex interplay of fear, societal expectations, and emotional distress that may not be adequately captured in broader public discourse. This disconnect raises questions about the true motivations behind support for MAiD and the need for more nuanced discussions about its implications.

In summary, the contradictions in support for Track 2 MAiD highlight the complexities of autonomy, compassion, inclusion, and societal values. They underscore the importance of critically examining the implications of assisted dying legislation, particularly in relation to historical injustices and the protection of vulnerable populations.
 
Last edited:
I was just taking too long to make my point that if the right questions are asked it can give correct answers, and clarify inconsistencies when pointed out. It shouldn’t be an excuse to dismiss a valid social concern discussed using AI. It is a reason to hold people responsible for training it properly and for asking it ethically responsible questions.
 
JayneWonders said:
Hi, I'm asking that this detailed conversation re maid cease in this thread. If you wish to continue it, and I hope you do, please move to a new thread.
Click to expand...
Agreed that this thread is not the place for another detailed conversation about MAiD.

But I think @Kimmio Laughterlove has made a very relevant contribution to the AI discussion.
 
One cannot contaminate pure threads with alternate thoughts ... expanded thinking might occur!

The powerful voices will just not hear of it ... thus the silence ... "if you see what I see" !

A star, astar ... it is out there beyond ... we cannot get a grip because of the gap ...
 
paradox3 said:
Agreed that this thread is not the place for another detailed conversation about MAiD.

But I think @Kimmio Laughterlove has made a very relevant contribution to the AI discussion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although not the one that I think she was making. I don't doubt AI's usefulness in some areas, but I think it has an intrinsic tendency towards confirmation bias.
 
Me:
Confirmation bias is a good thing in arguments against racism and sexism. Explain.

AI:
Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to favor information that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs while disregarding information that contradicts them. In arguments against racism and sexism, one might argue that confirmation bias can play a positive role in several ways:

1. **Reinforcement of Positive Narratives**: When individuals actively seek out and share information that highlights the negative impacts of racism and sexism, it can reinforce a collective narrative that values equality and justice. This can help build a stronger community and motivate action against discrimination.

2. **Encouragement of Advocacy**: Confirmation bias can lead advocates to focus on successful interventions and positive outcomes in combating racism and sexism. By emphasizing these successes, advocates can inspire others to join the cause and contribute to social change.

3. **Strengthening of Identity and Solidarity**: For marginalized groups, confirmation bias might help in affirming their experiences and identities. By focusing on evidence that supports their views on discrimination, individuals may feel validated and empowered to speak out against injustices.

4. **Mobilizing Support**: In debates or discussions, individuals may use confirmation bias to gather and present evidence that aligns with anti-racist or feminist perspectives. This can effectively mobilize support and create a more compelling argument for systemic change.

However, it's important to recognize the limitations of confirmation bias. While it can bolster arguments against racism and sexism, it can also lead to an oversimplified understanding of complex issues and hinder open dialogue. Engaging with diverse perspectives and evidence is essential for fostering a well-rounded view and effective advocacy.

Is the last paragraph about confirmation bias, confirmation bias too?
 
As long as topics come together and are not disseminating? Otherwise someone or something would be dispersed ... and they might feel put-out!

Just look at it from beyond as if in an abstract form ... like an OBI! You cannot see these from just anywhere ... thus we get off sometimes like Stella in that streetcar ... railroaded? Life is anarchy ... just look at its demands ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top