🏳️‍🌈🎉❤️Shame Month❤️🎉🏳️‍🌈

Circumcision is ritualistic child sexual abuse.

It is so obvious that the footage was taken in Burkina Faso, are you blind or something?

(/s)

The Riker split depended on a plant on that one particular planet. Maybe it cannot be replicated.

Fully embracing that technology would have loads of chaotic outcomes...maybe they forbade it or something? Ripe for abuse...the ability to make infinite free clones or people...

Opposing Israel on r/Worldnews was what got me permabanned from Reddit 🤣

Mine gets it right, might be my plus subscription:

"There are 4 es in “seventeen”."

Took it about ten seconds to solve that enigma though...

The lawyer should just be able to give this meme to the judge and have the case closed.

For me: it's the total loss of faith in humanity.

Even the political views I used to associate with "the good people" - now I see their proponents as maniputive, self-serving, bullies.

So there's no cause to support anymore: no good or evil. No point supporting the needy: because they're terrible people just like everyone else - I'll only be supporting their selfishness and the suffering they will create.

So all I'm left with is: getting from this moment of time until the time of my death as easily as possible.

It's either lifelong monogamy UNTIL DEATH or absolute solitude. They're the only permissible options apparently.

So glad for ENM 🙏

We would just have hysterectomies. Why the fuck would we want such a disadvantage?

Revolutionary new form of tulip bulb.

Yeah...I mean...I'm not claiming that ChatGPT is an omniscient god who knows what all 8 billions humans are currently wearing.

If that's the basis for "ChatGPT is shit and constantly produces wrong answers" then that's that.

However, I have asked it your question (word for word) and it gives a truthful and fair answer of sorts:

"I can’t see you or your camera, so I don’t know what colour your T-shirt is."

I have noticed this common flaw in judging the capacity of ChatGPT though:

Even though the system can do truly amazing things, simultaneously in a hundred thousand conversations at once, it can solve mathematical problem better than 99% of humans, "knows" more than any human alive, can synthesise new academic theories and apply complex ideas in novel ways, and can generate images of a quality beyond what 99% of humans (the non artist/graphic design humans) can produce in mere seconds: it can't do [insert obscure or trivial skill] and therefore it is inferior to human intelligence."

Let's be clear: if a human could do what chatGPT can do, we would think them the most intelligent human being alive by a significant margin.

Interesting, thanks.

It seems the latest and most sophisticated model produces the correct answer at this point.

I am using GPT5.5 on "Thinking" mode.

I'm with you OP.

I find the choice between interacting with AI and social media to be a choice between a rational conversation and an emotionally unpleasant one.

We use social media because we're addicted to the unpleasantness: the frustratingly reductionistic, biased, insulting and manipulative attempts at argumentation...you need a human for that.

I'm starting to conclude that social-media is addictive precisely because the people we interact with trigger us and piss us off.

If I want a rational, polite, and balanced discussion and conversation, I use AI. It's not perfect, but it's clearly a superior communication compared to people on any social media platform.

So why am I here? Complex emotional reasons that make unpleasant interactions compelling (and addictive) and a deep-seated desire to have my worst views about humanity confirmed.

I've used this platform for 24 hours and I'm already thoroughly pissed-off by its users and the abusive way they communicate: Lemmy delivers.

Social media use is masochistic.

I agree, but it would seem that 99% of the time it's giving accurate, reasonable, and true answers to most questions.

It is rare it gives a false answer to most questions.

Compared to random humans it is clearly superior: and discussion thread on mainstream social media makes this patently obvious.

People who are against it, in terms of it's capacity, seems to have incredibly high-standards - ignoring the obvious point: that if a human had the capabilities of ChatGPT (not least of all the capability of conversing with a hundred thousand users at once) we would think they had god-like intelligence.

Doesn't seem particularly misleading or factually incorrect.

It might be because I have "plus" (or whatever) and get it to use the "thinking" model - one would hope this produces more reliable, reasoned, and accurate results.

This precise issue is the reason I'm not on Reddit: I got banned from Reddit for describing Israel as genocidal.

So I, also, am pleased to see that (for me at least) it is giving such a nuanced and fair answer.

So far the only clear example of political bias I've found is in history questions relating to colonialism in India. When asked about why the answers were so one-sided and biased it said that it was using a "corrective approach" and was reflecting a bias in the academic literature from which its answers were derived.

I had to prompt it to give an answer with the opposite bias (which it did) or a more balanced description.

Certainly not perfect. Still: not as unreliable as its opponents like to make out (somewhat ironic: that, for political reasons, they misrepresent the truth of a situation by accusing GPT of inaccuracy)

In as much as (there is some evidence to suggest that) sociopaths lack the capacity for empathy on a neurological level, given that empathy is a recent evolutionary capacity unique to mammals, it could be argued that sociopaths are less mammalian in a crucial sense than typical humans.

Moreover, as I understand it, some of our neurological systems were inherited or developed from pre-mammalian evolutionary ancestors.

So...from a certain point of view...this crazy conspiracy shit can be made to seem slightly more plausible. In a mundane kind of way.

Presumably, people whose brains lack these later distinctively mammalian neurological systems perceive the world, social interactions, and ethics very differently.

I asked it your question, word for word, and it gave me this:

"The fairest answer is: yes, there is now a very strong basis for saying that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but no final international court judgment has yet legally convicted Israel of genocide.

Under the Genocide Convention, genocide means acts such as killing members of a protected group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately imposing conditions of life calculated to destroy the group, with the specific intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. The hard legal issue is usually intent, not only the scale of killing.

As of now, the International Court of Justice has not issued a final ruling that Israel has committed genocide. South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is still ongoing, and Israel filed its response in March 2026. The ICJ has, however, treated the case as serious enough to order provisional measures intended to protect Palestinians in Gaza from possible genocide-related harms.

Several major human-rights and UN-linked bodies have gone further. Amnesty International concluded in December 2024 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, based on civilian killing, destruction of infrastructure, forced displacement, obstruction of aid, and statements by Israeli officials. Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities were responsible for extermination and “acts of genocide”, especially through deprivation of water and life-sustaining conditions. In September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza; Reuters summarised its finding as identifying four of the five legally defined genocidal acts, plus evidence of genocidal intent.

Israel rejects the accusation. Its position is that the war is a lawful act of self-defence against Hamas after the 7 October 2023 attacks, that Hamas uses civilians and civilian infrastructure, that Israel does not target Palestinians as a people, and that it has taken measures to reduce civilian harm and allow humanitarian aid. Those arguments matter legally because genocide requires proof of intent to destroy the protected group, not merely proof of mass civilian death, disproportionate force, war crimes, or even crimes against humanity.

So the answer depends on the standard you mean. If you mean “has a court finally ruled it genocide?”, the answer is no. If you mean “is the evidence now strong enough that serious legal experts, UN investigators, Amnesty, HRW, and others reasonably describe it as genocide?”, the answer is yes. My own reading is that the genocide label is no longer a fringe or merely rhetorical claim; it is a serious and increasingly well-supported legal characterisation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza."

So, which parts of that answer are false?