We’re seriously fuckin’ doomed, as a species. All the morons are outsourcing their decision making to people who’ve learned to game the system exclusively for profit.

It really is nightmarish. I don’t know how else to say it. Something’s gotta give, but I’m afraid it’s not going to.

Honestly, this is nothing new.

Listening to ChatGPT is a solid improvement over listening to Tucker Carlson.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not good! I don’t exactly trust the Sam Altmans of the world. But this is the same circus, different clowns.

same circus, different clowns.

Or as I heard the other day:

Same shit, different flies

Until the inevitable weight update payed for by advertiser dollars to attempt profitability

I’ve always felt lucky to have been born Gen X. The music, the movies, the sports… all the legendary moments and all the huge breakthroughs to have been able to experience.

But now, sadly- there is another bonus, I’ll never live long enough to see end-result of AI erasing human culture. It’s enough to see it so quickly and thoroughly hobble the younger generation’s ability to think for themselves… we also have to see people dumb enough to enable it to continue.

I may not be glad when my times comes… but I think I’ll be pretty relieved.

Looks at religion

Not much different, really.

Profit and cruelty

Is this not what it was designed for?

Not with the monied interests in charge of its operation. They want people to depend upon the big AIs for answers to everything so they can subtly control the populace’s “thinking” and control them like the sheep most of them are.

Yes, that’s what the comment was saying.

Could be interpreted either way, I suppose - it was extremely vague.

I did mean it that way haha

You’re being downvoted, but you’re absolutely right. The entire point of the big commercial LLMs is to get ingrained into society and subtly manipulate people into things. That’s their business model.

When the companies can adjust the weights and responses to be more soft or critical to topics, you can’t exactly trust that it isn’t unbias some how.

you can click through to the source material when it’s linked.

but nobody is doing that, and when I admit to doing it people tell me I’m deranged.

Ballot language is crafted to be intentionally misleading and political ads are nothing but hyperbole bullshit.

In an ideal world where it still exists it would just give them approved links to the candidates policies and voting history but we all know that’s not what’s happening.

I cannot imagine someone not being VERY sure how to vote in this next American election.

Trump isn’t on the ballot, and they won’t pay enough attention to their Congress critters to know whether they should keep them. People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted pushed (word change due to an admittedly poor choice of word, but if you read the entirely of what I’ve written then it’s obvious what problem I’m trying to address) to vote, IMHO, because for them it’s purely a popularity of the moment contest rather than the choice of who will actually work towards improving their constituents’ lives - an utterly absurd basis for determining the future of us all.

People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO

Ironically, you’d have to not be paying a certain minimal amount of attention to checks notes middle school US history to not understand how catastrophic this is in practice. Incidentally, that SPLC quiz isn’t even nearly the extent of the questions.

I would bar you from voting for this statement alone on the merits of “paying attention”.

Yeah, I’ve heard that before, but it’s a single example - it’s not an invalid point, but neither is mine. I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.

Too many people just aren’t interested in what those running their lives are up to, and yet they’re routinely told to go vote if they want to be considered good citizens. So it’s become a circus every election cycle. I think those people shouldn’t be pushed to vote if they’re not interested in understanding what’s going on in their capitals, plain and simple. They’ll learn the hard way to have an interest.

but it’s a single example

No, it isn’t. In fact, the South wasn’t even the first in the US to do this for the express purpose of disenfranchising a minority – more evidence that you aren’t paying sufficient attention to the policy you want implemented. Some decades earlier, Connecticut implemented literacy tests to specifically (and successfully) disenfranchise Irish immigrants.

Even if you ignore that:

1. Jim Crow-era literacy tests happened over a period of 75 years. That’s not “one example”; that’s a bunch of states over the course of nearly a century disenfranchising millions.
2. It’s so blatantly obvious once you examine that "one example"™ why this system fundamentally cannot work and will be abused. If you can’t see that, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to turn you away from the polling station, because you’re clearly unequipped to vote.

Okay, so “not permitted” may not have been the best choice of words. "Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.

You haven’t provided a single rebuttal against the overall concept that those who aren’t following along shouldn’t be peer-pressured into voting for something they know little to nothing about. Yet, we do it because the spin-doctors realized those people are so easy to manipulate into voting against their interests, and it’s become a part of the American political process ever since.

"Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.

No, I actually don’t know what you’re saying. Because at first, you said “not permitted”, then in your second comment, you retained that position by saying: “I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.” You’re still, in that second (“previous”) comment, going on about how we can use tests of people’s political understanding to bar them from voting if we’re just clever about it.

Now you’re just claiming it “may have not been the best choice of words”, abandoning the position you took in those two comments and then lambasting me for, like, taking you at your word that what you said is what you meant.

That’s not what “not the best choice of words” means; going from “People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO” to “not pushed” and then crying “pedantry” is being comically dishonest to save face. You completely changed positions mid-argument and then got offended that I addressed your first position before you changed it. I’m actually kind of stunned at how brazen this is.

Oh, spare me the sanctimoniousness. One poorly chosen word should not have thrown you off what I was after when considering the entirely of what I said. You are blatantly unserious, and just looking to play high & mighty while you still haven’t addressed the central problem I’ve described multiple times.

I’m done with you. Good night.

I’ve figured it out: this is part of a poll test to see how well I respond to a politician gaslighting me about the things they’ve said.

Beautiful, well-played. Can I get my ballot now please?

Lemme guess. Blue no matter who?

How do they walk around with so little awareness of reality?

I only trust 1/3 of USAmericans to show up, the other 2/3 have disappointed me too many times already to expect anything of them

I actually don’t hate this concept as long as you verify (don’t blindly trust) all the info it gives you.

The reason I say this?

Many local races, especially in “purple” areas can be super ambiguous. Candidates will circulate mailers and ads painting themselves as “pro economy, pro schools, and pro puppy” because they are trying to be vanilla AF and appeal to everyone. Their websites often list a few generic issues and that’s it.

AI might actually be useful to summarize major issues, actions, and voting record of the incumbent while collating information about a challenger candidate from other sources.

Local TV tends to be dogshit at their coverage of candidates actual plans and positions but you could also try that, if all else fails. Or maybe find a YouTube video of a debate (if there is one for the office in question) and have the AI give you a bullet point summary.

or, you know, manipulate the results so that the pro-ai/ceo candidate is shown to be more appealing no matter what the actual situation of the conversation or facts are.

“oh no, sorry I was hallucinating”

You’re assuming the AI is impartial. After seeing what Musk did to Grok, you should be thoroughly disabused of that notion.

Exactly. None of the cloud-based LLMs are impartial on politics.

Neither are the local ones, unless they’re also open weights. But even then, there’s a lot more right wing content with reach out there then left wing making the dataset biased from the get go.

Would love to see 30 people ask LLMs who to vote for from red/purple/blue districts, my guess is it will push right wing regardless of where you are. I stay away from this shit as I don’t see a use for it, but, would be fun to see if I’m correct or not on this

Everyone thinks they’ve verified what they were told, I’ve even seen people paste text from whatever website saying it supports their point when really it just has similar keywords. Your brain is very use it or lose it, and when you export research and thinking to AI your ability to do either drops.

What could possibly go wrong.

At least they’re not asking grok.

ugh. but they probably are, aren’t they?

gRoK iS tHiS tRuE?

Facebook in one ear and chatgpt in the other. We are doomed.

They are also asking AI to do their grocery list. As i had the pleasure of learning just recently on reddit, when this was posted there.

how does that even work?

like isn’t giving it the inputs of your groceries the same thing as making the list yourself?

or is more like they say ‘i want to cook tandoori chicken this week’ and it just pulls from a generic recipe the ingredients list?

I have no idea. I got downvoted and some dude kept accusing me of “trying to win a discussion” and tell me that he “doesn’t understand my garbage arguments”.

Some candidates just don’t have a lot of public information available about them. Relying on their campaign page alone can tell you which audience they’re trying to get votes from, but it doesn’t always line up with how they’ll actually act.

There are varying degrees of bad to good ways of utilizing LLMs for something like this.

The worst way is to just straight up ask it who to vote for. I doubt this is how it’s being used. Most likely people are telling it what kind of political views they hold and then asking which candidate supports those views. Still a terrible way to handle the situation since it’s not hard for an LLM to hallucinate information, especially when candidates have similar names to others in its training.

Having a long political chat with a non-local LLM is a quick way to let companies create a political profile on all of their users.

One good way would be to use a locally run LLM, provide a bunch of source material (every bill they’ve written/sponsored), and ask it to find evidence that a candidate supports particular viewpoints. Ask it to point directly to where in the source material that reinforces/conflicts with those viewpoints. Then double check the flagged source material for accuracy.

Yeah, that’s true. One thing that drives me nuts about local elections is… there is no useful info on the candidates, not from themselves, not from news papers, not from anyone… it sucks.

almost all the ‘info’ about my local candidates was… arguments on Facebook about why candidate x or candidate y and an evil demonic force, or an angelic savior of the people.

God, these people are not capable of rational thought.

I’ll admit I am a little stumped myself. Do I vote against republicans early or wait until voting day? What’s going to be harder for them to steal?

Early in person voting tends to be the safest bet

That’s so smart. You don’t have to do any thinking. Pretty soon all thought will be eliminated and AI can tell us how to do everything from how to tie our shoes to how to structure our society. That way we just do what we’re told and can be ruled by a handful of billionaires. Smart. /S

most people don’t enjoy thinking. they also don’t enjoy running marathons.

because both things are painful. they are also time consuming.

they only becoming enjoyable or worthwhile when you have a sufficient level of practice. for someone who is a couch potato, running a marathon is impossible without months or years of hard work, and they also likely think marathon running is stupid and pointless and there is likely something ‘wrong’ with people who run marathons.

thinking and using your mental faculties are no different than your physical ones.

As a smart person who hates running I’m really struggling with this one

if you aren’t taking care of your health via exercise, you’re not that smart, are you?

your mind can only function as well as your body can. a good diet and exercise increases your mental capacities.

One section per day, two sets.

Lower Body Banded front squats 50lb x20 Deadlifts 120lb x20 Lunges x20 Slow Glute Bridges x20

Core/Butt Donkey kicks banded x20 (40/50lb) Clamshells x20 Bicycle Crunches x20 Leg Lift Plank 15sec ea side

Upper Body Push-ups x12 Ring Rows x20 Dip x12 or OH Extension 50lbx10 Bicep curls x12 me 70lb E 50lb bands

Can confirm. Am dumb and lazy.

I’ll play devil’s advocate here and say that for people who use AI to make this decision, it’s going to make them decide better.

If you are the type of person who has to ask an AI this question, you probably aren’t capable of making a good decision on your own. In that sense, I agree with you.

That being said, LLMs are being manipulated by billionaires to protect the system that keeps them rich and powerful. They will give bad advice by design.

On the last election in my country, I’ve visited tents set by 10 different political parties that are entering the election just to see how would they try to convince me, if I went to them as an uncertain voter that’s warm to their party. It was a genuine eye-opener regarding what these parties do to influence uncertain voters which especially matters in my country because on polls, people that are uncertain make up %12-16, which will tip elections exactly when it matters.

3 parties instantly tried to recruit me as a party member within the first minute, 5 parties we actually had a discussion that 2 of which had a roadmap they could present right there, 2 parties treated it as a gift merch with their names on to boost their visibility operation, on one party the dude there had no idea what their ideology is and just said “trust me man this dude is solid. Vote him”, one party just badmouthed an opposing party in the whole discussion and didn’t mention a single thing they would improve.

No amount of AI could give that amount of representation I got right there.

…never stop proving you are the stupidest fucking people in the whole world america

For anybody looking for a good resource: Ballotpedia is pretty good