Philosophy (MA) Psychology (BA)
Pro-AI Vegetarian Misanthrope Cynic Agnostic/Atheist
It is precisely because the users of social media are so so awful that we use it.
Nonetheless, ChatGPT is frequently accused by its opponents of giving incorrect or false answers. I use it a lot and don't find this to be true, so I'm wondering: what should I ask it to show me these inaccuracies?
For me, the most problematic answer was in response to: "What was India like before the British arrived?"
It presented (and still presents) an entirely positive vision of the wonderful utopia that existed before the British arrived.
Then you ask "what about the women being burnt alive in their husbands funeral pyres?" pointing out that it's presented an incredibly biased representation of historical facts and narratives: it will apologise, give (interesting) excuses, and provide a corrective.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting example of bias.
Nobody in this thread has been able to provide me with any examples that produce inaccurate or bissed responses.
The top answer, about Israel (the reason I got banned from Reddit was for calling Israel genocidal in r/Worldnews) seems like a perfectly reasonable response to me: free of falsehood, balanced, rational.
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?
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.
We would just have hysterectomies. Why the fuck would we want such a disadvantage?
The Philosophy of Pinball by Godwin
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...
Do you eat meat?
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.
The first sensible thing I've read here.
It's got to the point where if I want a rational, well-informed, and balanced discussion about anything I'll just chat with AI.
If I want an emotionally unpleasant, "us vs then" manipulative, frustratingly one-sided or limited interaction: I'll go onto social media and find someone to trigger me.
Didn't take long on this new platform.
Ironic I suppose: these people hate AI so much, but everything they type (e.g the manipulative nonsense arguments) illustrates their own inferiority to the AI systems they oppose.
For me it is, apparently, the unpleasantness of social media discussions that make them so compelling and addictive... otherwise I'd just discuss things with AI.
No.
Being a persuasive communicator and recruiting people to one's political agenda has never been a matter of pure logic and reason: going around insulting "the other side" will not work.
Not that anything would: I judge the value of X by X. X could have been made by a sandstorm: if it's beautiful it's beautiful.
A piece of music, for example, is either enjoyable or it isn't. Admittedly AI music has a way to go yet - but it's clearly already superior to a percentage of human made music.
The very concept of "hallucination" and the choice of that word in this context shows how removed the entire debate had become.
A machine cannot hallucinate because it cannot have an experience.
The output is either pleasing or displeasing, an accurate and useful response to a request or not. To claim that all AI products are "ugly and useless" is a patently absurd position: were the same thing made by a human a decade ago it would have been deemed as "good, beautiful, useful, and valuable."
Is that something you know or something you choose to believe?
It's my first 24 hours here. If I could get paid for saying what I believe I'd gladly take the money. But honestly, I'm just a Reddit refugee - and have no idea about the ideological bent of the users of this platform (though I'm quickly learning it's as hysterical, fanatical and willing to use disingenuous argumentation and rhetoric as those on Reddit).
My real reason for joining: I'm addicted to having my faith in humanity destroyed by interacting with terrible people on the internet - but got permabanned from Reddit for speaking against Israel on r/Worldnews.
So thanks for delivering: 24 hours and I'm already being insulted and called a bot because I think AI is impressive and refuse to join the "Everything AI produces has 0% value" nonsense.
It's literally got to the point where if I want an actual rationale, balanced, non-hysterical discussion: I go to ChatGPT. If I want an emotionally unpleasant, annoyingly irrational, rhetorically disingenuous and frustrating argument that goes nowhere: I feed my social media addiction instead and talk with a human.
What do you hope to achieve with the personal attacks? You'll only make me dislike "your side" even more. It only reveals how unpersuasive your position is...if you resort to shaming and insult to bully people into your position.
You care so much about water waste and the environment...but do you eat meat?
If so...all of a sudden your "rational justifications for an ethical position you have taken without bias" cease to be coherent with your other lifestyle choices.
As for "AI Slop" [an obvious propaganda term, designed to be reductionist] and its lack of X, Y and Z: it's literally drawing on an ocean of X,Y and Z in the first place - the sum total of all X, Y and Z driven human artistic and creative endeavour.
As with so many political discussions: I suspect this one is pointless. Two sides, both alien to the other. I'm as unlikely to bring you round as you are to bring me around.
It processes information to generate new (often very beautiful) works: just like human artists.
Opposing Israel on r/Worldnews was what got me permabanned from Reddit 🤣
OP is baffled by the pro-AI people.
I'm baffled by the anti-AI people.
Fundamentally it seems bizarre to judge the quality of, for example, an image or a piece of music, by the process that created it: the proof is in the pudding.
I'm amazed at what AI is generating...it seems kind of fake to pretend a beautiful image isn't beautiful when you discover it's made by AI.
The arguments against AI are annoyingly reductionist or biased: e.g. focusing on occasional "hallucinations" as if the majority of AI productions aren't, basically, impressive (or, at least, what was asked for by the user).
Making amazing images incredibly quickly 🤷🏻♂️
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...