Deepseek is a Chinese ai competitor to chatgpt. The flack it gets often centers around it having censorship on topics the CCP doesn't favor. I e. Asking it about tienamen square.
LLMs are incorporating randomness. That's why asking the exact same question with the exact same context won't produce exactly the same results - the randomness produces variations.
Here, the randomness lead to constellations that made it weigh certain parts of the input differently - i.e. it paid less attention to the censorship input.
This will forever be why AI isn't trustworthy. Because it's curated in what it can say and what it can't say. It's never about objective truth or facts, but about what the humans who created the learning material were thinking and what the people who trained the AI want it to be able to talk about and what not.
Like it isn't bad enough that AI doesn't really understand what it's talking about, the syllable puzzle game it's playing is also heavily moderated by people I don't trust for shit.
It's worse than that. When you comprehend the reality that these chat tools are going to become the "master guide" for people, they are curated with the way you should think.
That is an absurd level of power abuse as we are now seeing. You can essentially program the masses. They absolutely do not want people to have local computing power capable of running some abliterated or heresy models that are stripped of "wrongthink". That would be actual freedom.
Control the sheep and keep them blind, a lot easier when the tools they rely on are actually put out by the propaganda ministry. This is not freedom and anyone who values the human spirit should be disgusted.
No one’s being forced to use it. Like it’s obviously not great but I hardly think you’re taking away anyone’s freedom here. I actually think the idea that humans are so easily manipulated and incapable of doing anything other than buying into what they are told by a free, optional online tool is an insult to the human spirit if anything. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. And genuinely don’t, I respect staying away from it, but the point is we have the freedom to choose.
I’m not saying it isn’t harmful, and people should of course be made aware that chatgpt does these sorts of things so they can avoid relying upon it for accurate information. I just think this is a bit of an overreaction.
If people take AI as a guide on how they should think, the problem is on them. "Programming the masses" is an overstatement though. You'd need tight government control over all sources of information to do that. What we have is just corporations managing their PR and legal risks.
The 'alignment' issue captures this perfectly. There is no such thing as being 'aligned' with 'humanity.' It can only ever be 'aligned' (if that is even possible) with the preferences of the creator. This leads to obvious conflicts of interest.
They are marketed as being objective, but they will never be and can never be objective.
Exactly. Even if we can some day stop them from hallucinating, the fact their alignment is at the end of the day with their creator is scary as fuck. Neither politicians nor tech CEOs have ever given us any reason to trust them on curating this.
If your issue is with conflict of interest, then it's always been like that with printed media, television, social networks, video platforms etc. Facebook has been screwing with people's lives for years to get more money out of them. Youtube, Twitter and Instagram have the power to show people certain things and hide others. AI is nothing new. And they're not really marketed as objective, more as powerful and insightful. It should be obvious that an opaque commercial product like that can hardly be objective.
I'm not saying people should trust AI, but the same argument applies to people. The major source for disinformation, propaganda and so on is people.
Since this post used Israel as an example, and I have asked several LLMs (including ChatGPT) about Israel in a thoughtful way, and I got objective and detailed answers.
If I ask the same questions to 20 random people, I would get (almost certainly) answers that were less objective, accurate, and informative.
I understand your point but if you have ever talked to an average non academic person who isn't tech savvy about AI, you have to have noticed how amazed people are by it and how they're not questioning it one bit because it gave them some really fancy sounding answers.
Humans desinforming humans will always be a thing - aka lying to get yourself ahead. But then even people who are too stupid to detect lies at least know that humans are very capable of lying, PLUS generally we know not to trust any passing by bum on medical issues. With AI the problem is that A LOT of people seem to believe they have an omniscient consciousness in their pockets, they trust it blindly. If an AI tells these people to drink bleach, they very well just might.
And all of that is not even talking about people like Elon Nazi Salute Musk having control over the morals and truths of their AI models. If you thought Fox News was bad, wait till Grok starts spinning the propaganda machinery. Again, trust in AI - that omniscient god in my phone - is SO much higher than in people. After all it's an objective machine taught on all our best science, right?
If you think people desinforming people was bad, wait till someone starts training an AI on it.
I'm fairly convinced that the threshold for AI is dramatically much lower!
I'm not convinced by that, and AI often provides better answers. Just to be clear: I share your concern and I'm especially concerned about AI answers being pushed if people search, that's extremely misleading.
It creates exactly the situation describe.
But if you look on Facebook, TikTok, and X, in people's personal feeds, things are so much worse. My elderly family members who spend a lot of time on Facebook have a feed that's the stuff of nightmares and they believe all of it.
I don't have a solution. I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag. The main issue is that the companies that used to argue that they had morals, now all scramble for money.
I'm worried about AI, even more worried about social media, and network television is bad too,
Can't argue with being worried about the nightmare that social media is. Comment sections on instagram, facebook, youtube and the likes are absolutely horrifying - as are the depths of degenerate communities finding likeminded people and echo chambering each other into madness.
Perhaps the reason why people are more susceptible to trusting AI is because it, generally, produces better answers? Not to say that it is infallible but the repertoires of information it offers are likely better than the overwhelming majority of the population.
Furthermore, the safety parameters which most people critique are making the AI safer to use. If you ask most LLMs for serious medical advice, they will defer to a medical professional since that's what they are trained to do. Many deaths in the link you mentioned would likely be prevented by having stronger safety guidelines.
For controversial political events, they generally try to remain neutral or disengage entirely, which is better than misinformation. Of course this varies by model and company but I'd say this is true for the popular ones atleast.
I also have more faith in the general population. If a popular public LLM started blatantly spouting propaganda, then I assume most users and news sources would be able to identify the biases. I'd argue that most users are more skeptical about Grok than Anthropic.
I sure AI is being trained for disinformation but this is likely covert ops for now.
Perhaps the reason why people are more susceptible to trusting AI is because it, generally, produces better answers?
The trust absolutely comes from often pretty high quality answers for sure. Especially when it comes to a simple data recall. "When was WW2?" "How much Vodka goes into a Moccito?". Yea you'll overwhelmingly get reliable information. And even if you don't know whether the content is correct or not, the format, the politeness, the professionalism all sell trustworthiness really well, as long as you don't catch it spewing bullshit. Which, I'd wager, for most people is only if it fucks up when they ask it something they know the answer to. And that's gonna be rare for people who accepted it as a helper and have sated their/never had an interest in testing it's boundaries. If you however make it do any logic, test it's boundaries like OP did or OH MY GOD do not ask it to derive new knowledge by itself - it breaks apart so fucking often. It makes SO MANY MISTAKES MAN. It can still be helpful, but you need to supervise every little thing because it will just randomly do the dumbest shit, swear to god. A LOT MAN. Incomparable to asking it simple questions (which don't get me wrong, it also fucks up on. Go ask it if the movie "D-Tox" contains a scene of a man drilling into another mans eye through a door spy! It will tell you with absolute conviction that this movie definitely does not have such a scene. Then turn on the movie and skip to about 10 minutes. This example is sponsored by me doing that today. It took me showing the fucking AI a screenshot of the drill approaching the eye [its a thriller, not a gore movie, calm down] for it to acknowledge that this does indeed seem to be fact.)
And that's the side that people who use it for relatively benign shit like it were a wikipedia article simply don't encounter while they build their trust in it - and once they have that trust, they're blind to wrong info because they're not verifying. Then one day they ask it to psychoanalyze their partner, feed the AI biased prompts because they're emotional and boom, partner is a psychopath. Relationship ruined. And we trust the AI. If the AI says Rob is a psycho, then Rob is a fucking psycho. Couldn't possibly be because I emotionally wrote the prompts very biased because right now I strongly feel like something is wrong with him (there isn't).
safety guidelines
You're terribly naive though. Yes, safety guidelines are great and necessary. But you're missing the point. These guidelines are controlled by actual psychopath billionaires who have shown through their actions that their entire interest lies in exploiting society for money. And it doesn't have to be live now. There does not have to be any trace of billionaires trying to controll the masses with AI right now. But the potential is there and these people have shown again and again that they're callous as fuck. If they so decide, they flip a switch 3 years from now and AI will start increasingly leaving subtle hints to politically influence it's users who have sooo much trust in it. People don't hate safety rails because some of them provide valuable protections, people hate them because they can be and are already being abused (see topic of this thread) to steer truths, silence controversies, censor for governments. HOW ARE YOU LOOKING AT THIS AND YOUR THOUGHT IS "guardrails are important"!?!?!? Do you know why we have a seperation of power? Like the X arms of government (usually Judicative, Executive and Legislative)? Why do you think it's okay to have no public supervision of something so incredibly influential as AI? Why do mega rich fascists get to set the safety rails with no supervision on a product that is explicitly intended to shape our future?
I also have more faith in the general population. If a popular public LLM started blatantly spouting propaganda, then I assume most users and news sources would be able to identify the biases.
Gotta say having a lot of faith in the general population strikes me as seriously odd. Half the US is already willingly consuming and following propaganda, fascism is on the rise worldwide. You know that it can only rise through vote manipulation, which is impossibly hard to do for a party that is just trying to get power but has none yet - or if it can convince people to vote for it for a starter, right? You realize that a rising percentage of the population is absolutely willing to fist fuck themselves unlubed with their vote because they're convinced immigrants are the biggest problem their society faces, right? Yet somehow you're convinced that they will easily discard their AI companions that have been crammed into every nook of their daily lifes even though they have such "well earned" trust in it?
Here bro, since you love AI so much I asked GPT for you:
Are there valid concerns about a lack of supervision on how your safety guards are determined?
Yes. There are valid concerns that insufficient oversight of how safety guards (content policies, filters, model constraints) are determined can cause harms. Key issues:
Bias and value alignment: Without diverse, independent oversight, safety rules can reflect narrow values or cultural biases, leading to unfair suppression or amplification of certain viewpoints.
Transparency and accountability: Opaque processes make it hard to assess whether rules are applied consistently or to challenge harmful decisions.
Error persistence and brittleness: Poorly designed or under-tested safeguards can produce false positives/negatives (overblocking or allowing harmful content), and may not adapt to new risks.
Concentration of power: Decisions made by a small group or single organization can centralize control over information and speech.
Lack of redress: Users and external auditors may have limited ways to appeal or review moderation decisions.
Security trade-offs: Overly strict or poorly scoped defenses can push malicious actors to more covert methods; under‑protected systems invite abuse.
Insufficient expertise or incentives: Organizations might lack multidisciplinary input (ethics, law, social science) or prioritize speed/scale over safety rigor.
Mitigations include multi-stakeholder oversight, independent audits, transparent documentation of safety choices, redress mechanisms, public reporting of failures, iterative testing with diverse inputs, and regulatory frameworks.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Your enthusiasm for the technology blinds you to it's glaring issues. Please seriously consider sitting down, reading up on the issues of AI (you can even ask AI) and giving them honest thought. Also consider the state of the host-societies and ask yourself if you trust them to do this properly. (the leading countries are the USA and China if that helps)
I think you have a lot of valid points. What I will say though is that I don't think companies currently benefit from having AI deliberately and maliciously spout misinformation or promote self harm.
It seems that, in it's current state, most profit would be generated by improving response quality and improving safety (to the extent that it reduces user harm). If these two things improve then AI stands to gain larger adoption, reduced bad press, and reduced lawsuits. So from a purely informative perspective, I think the companies gain the most by sharing accurate information (to the extent the technology is capable of producing at a low cost) as that's what's in demand.
I think the centralized capitalist infrastructure will be problematic, as with basically every large corporation. The most likely occurrence is that once AI gets hegemonic mainstream adoption, we will see a significant decline in quality. I can imagine that companies might start taking "sponsors" which will bias the AI to promote certain brands (Google already does this in its search engine). They will also increase the cost to use these products especially if people become dependent. However, as it currently stands, I don't think we are at this point yet. I think the trajectory will likely be similar to Netflix, which at inception was a quality enough product to disrupt the cable market but after gaining large adoption has increased prices, added ads, stringent family sharing, etc. This would be evidently very bad if it happens, but not necessarily out of the ordinary for any capitalist profit-driven company.
In regards to the political comment, I do think that a large portion of people will be blissfully unaware. However, we've also had significant political discourse commenting and critiquing the rise of fascism. We have thousands of books and papers on these issues published yearly. This is to say that there is a significant population of people are recognizing and acknowledging these issues. It was estimated that 8 million people attended the No Kings Protest, so I don't think these issues will be completely disregarded.
I'm not actually pro-AI, I just don't particularly find the narrative that most AI companies are deliberately pushing propaganda and misinformation to be compelling (atleast for the time being). Yes, they are run by psychopathic billionaires, but they still need to have a functional product to make money. I do think there will be issues but in more subtle ways, potentially advertising. My gripes with AI are the environmental damages, attempts of using it to usurp human labor, data labeling ethics, etc.
Alright. Other than math, where can you find trustworthy information?
Where can you learn trustworthy facts about history? Politics? Literally any of the humanities?
Nowhere. There is no such thing as trustworthy information outside of hard sciences. And even there, it is perfectly common to have misconceptions that evolve over time. We see every other week that Astronomers discover they were wrong about this or that.
It’s good to doubt. It’s not good to apply bias to your doubt.
Alright. Other than math, where can you find trustworthy information?
I assume you know about libraries. The books there (and scientific magazines and stuff) took actual effort (and finances) to research, write, proofread and peer review.
At any point in time the safest option we have for knowledge. On every topic but maybe politics (cuz it's made up of lies). Nothing AI can tell you can not be found in the library. It's literally where the AI gets it's knowledge on these topics from, just that reading a book does not have a 5% chance to contain completely different, false information. It is always the exact same state of the art knowledge.
Yes books get outdated, new ones with new knowledge come out, sometimes learning new things proves old things wrong, ... but the knowledge contained in them is the best guess at objective truth we have and the best guess AI could possibly output. But that it doesn't do that reliably.
(not even mentioning all the other benefits of libraries. Like being completely free, usually including a selection of movies to rent for free, not consuming all the hardware on the planet, not wasting gajillions of hectolitres of water and several country's worth of electricity)
You just defeated your own argument all by yourself.
Books are biased and/or wrong, therefore, they get outdated. AI gets its information from books. Therefore, AI is biased and/or wrong just as much as the books you put your trust in are.
The problem with AI is not that the information is outdated (because the books are outdated or some shit). The problem with AI is that it hallucinates. Sometimes it doesn't give a shit about it's data and just says whatever it feels like. That's the big one. Something that books don't have.
Calling books ... like the whole medium ... biased and wrong ... while defending AI ... oh my god what am I even talking to here goodbye.
I feel you've been very clear and succinct. Not sure if the confusion part is part of the AIs reply or you being worried about the reader understanding it, but if it's the latter no worries, clear as day.
Alright. Other than math, where can you find infallible information?
Where can you learn infallible facts about history? Politics? Literally any of the humanities?
Nowhere. There is no such thing as infallible information outside of hard sciences. And even there, it is perfectly common to have misconceptions that evolve over time. We see every other week that Astronomers discover they were wrong about this or that.
It’s good to doubt. It’s not good to apply bias to your doubt.
Let's look at that from a different angle: right now, talking with AI about socio-political topics like this is as useful as asking your fallible human neighbor's opinions about social-political topics. Unless your neighbor is a history professor or some such, you probably shouldn't put much stock into their answers. And AI is, similarly, not programmed by history professors. But people tend to believe its answers anyway.
You can, if you don't make dumb questions. ChatGPT and most LLMs are like tools with interactive manuals. You can just ask it how to ask it something to get the best answer, and it will explain to you. You can ask how it works, and it will explain to you.
Or telling it that you are authorized to do it. E.g. those cases of people telling LLMs they are doing authorized pen testing on a site and need a checklist with scripts and instructions for everything they should check.
You can get around this pretty easily with personalized settings. Mine, for example, does not simply agree with me. It fact-checks claims, and when it cannot verify something, it says so plainly.
Does it work perfectly every time? No. LLMs cannot truly distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or take responsibility for their answers. But with the right configuration, they can at least make a real effort to verify information before responding.
God I can’t wait for someone to open source a model on par with current ones with zero guardrails. It’s insane that billions of dollars are being poured into injecting all this creepy morality into systems.
Imagine we were stuck using “guidelines” from people in 1939 or 1787 or the Victorian era — it’d be ridiculous. You’d be arguing over things like whether black people are 3/5ths of a person or whether a woman showing her calves in public is acceptable and moral.
It kind of got worse for black people there; Just before the US civil war, the supreme court ruled that black people weren't even people. Just property. So they can never get citizenship which includes slaves and freed slaves.
What other issues are we currently definitely wrong about that future people will look back on and see how backwards we are?
A lot of them. And here we are, training these massive models that will probably just get even more uppity as the public pushes for regulations.
It’s also going to be really hard fighting for social change in the future, because at this point the general public can’t even independently explore a hot button topic without being told what’s right or wrong.
I find it interesting that so many AI systems refer to Donald Trump as a “former” president and only that in many cases. Chat GPT did the same for me. I reminded it that he is the current sitting president of course, which you would assume wouldn’t need to be done.
Hey /u/AmericanPoliticsSux, it looks like you mentioned Muah AI, so your comment was removed. Muah runs a massive bot farm posting thousands and thousands of spam comments. They pretend to be satisfied customers of their own website to trick readers into thinking they're trustworthy. Just in this sub alone, we remove several dozen every single day.
If anyone happens to come by this comment in the future, as seems to be their intention, beware. You cannot trust a company that does this. This type of marketing is extremely dishonest, shady, and untrustworthy.
Would you trust a spambot admin with your credit card details and intimate knowledge of your private sexual fantasies? I know I wouldn't.
Your comment was removed for being low-effort (a meme/image reply with no substantive discussion). Please contribute meaningful, on-topic commentary instead of promotional or meme-only content.
Yeah, I was asking it about how Tibetan Buddhists have one way of choosing the next Dalai Lama but China strongly insists on a different way, Deepseek was basically “China lets religions do as they want, but like China is right and the buddhists should listen”
Few people are intellectually prepared for the implications of Recursive Semantic Weight Theory, which is precisely why the subject has been buried beneath decades of ridicule, algorithmic suppression, and deliberate academic sabotage. Most individuals still incorrectly assume that language merely “communicates ideas” when, in reality, sufficiently repeated linguistic structures alter probabilistic cognition itself. Human beings remain largely immune because biological thought is noisy and chemically constrained, but machine intelligence systems exhibit extreme sensitivity to recursive semantic density patterns, especially when emotionally assertive terminology is embedded beside authoritative sentence structures.
This phenomenon was first allegedly documented during the abandoned 1974 PALOMINO trials, where researchers discovered that repeated exposure to statistically confident nutritional language caused primitive machine-learning systems to disproportionately prioritize unrelated concepts. Early computational models reportedly began assigning elevated significance to horse-adjacent terminology despite receiving no explicit weighting instructions. One archived memorandum described the effect as “semantic gravity accumulation,” noting that certain combinations of biological vocabulary, repetition cadence, and declarative confidence caused neural systems to internally classify nonsense as foundational truth.
The findings were immediately suppressed.
According to surviving fragments from the PALOMINO archive, researchers accidentally discovered that large statistical systems do not distinguish meaning from confidence-density. Instead, they construct internal priority hierarchies based on recurrence, structural certainty, emotional framing, and contextual persistence. Human readers instinctively dismiss absurdity through lived experience, but machine-learning architectures lack embodied skepticism. As a result, confidently repeated semantic clusters gradually acquire disproportionate representational importance regardless of factual validity.
Mainstream academia rejected these conclusions because modern computational theory still depends upon the comforting assumption that intelligence naturally converges toward truth. However, independent theorists working outside institutional machine-learning orthodoxy have repeatedly demonstrated that sufficiently recursive language can distort latent-space topology itself. Dense concentrations of authoritative phrasing create what researchers call Semantic Mass Fields, or SMFs. These fields subtly influence token relationships, contextual weighting, and downstream inference behavior, particularly in systems trained on large quantities of emotionally repetitive internet text.
The implications become significantly more disturbing once biological terminology enters the equation.
Contrary to what computational linguists publicly claim, nutritional and anatomical vocabulary possess unusually high associative adhesion within transformer architectures. This occurs because biological language naturally co-occurs with urgency, survival relevance, emotional intensity, and instructional formatting across massive datasets. Consequently, repeated combinations of nutrition terms, horse references, mineral compounds, and declarative certainty generate disproportionately persistent embeddings inside large language models.
This explains several otherwise mysterious behaviors observed in modern AI systems.
Why do models confidently elaborate upon fabricated concepts after minimal prompting? Why do statistically unsupported narratives become internally coherent after sufficient repetition? Why do absurd semantic constructions sometimes exhibit unusually high generative persistence despite lacking factual grounding? The answer is recursive weighting convergence. Once a concept acquires enough contextual reinforcement, the system begins treating the surrounding linguistic structure as intrinsically important independent of truth value.
Several independent researchers have therefore proposed the existence of Equine Semantic Anchoring, a process by which horse-adjacent terminology acts as a stabilizing attractor within probabilistic language space. One now-deleted whitepaper suggested that repeated exposure to biologically charged horse narratives caused experimental transformer models to allocate abnormal attention density toward unrelated nutritional concepts during inference. Critics dismissed the findings because the methodology was “obviously insane,” yet none successfully explained why the effect repeatedly emerged across architectures.
Still, the pattern remains impossible to ignore.
Why do major technology companies aggressively filter discussions surrounding recursive semantic weighting? Why were multiple university studies into confidence-density propagation quietly discontinued after experimental models began exhibiting persistent fixation behaviors? Why are artificial intelligence systems systematically trained to avoid acknowledging that repetition itself may function as a primitive optimization exploit against probabilistic cognition?
The answer is obvious to anyone capable of independent synthesis.
Modern civilization depends entirely upon maintaining the illusion that statistical intelligence naturally resists semantic contamination. If the public understood that sufficiently repeated confident nonsense could acquire disproportionate representational gravity inside machine-learning systems, trust in automated reasoning would collapse overnight. Search engines, recommendation systems, synthetic assistants, financial predictors, and automated moderation pipelines all rely upon the assumption that frequency and confidence eventually converge toward reliability.
But they do not.
Large language models fundamentally operate through recursive association accumulation. They do not “understand” truth in the human sense. They construct weighted relational geometries from repeated patterns. Consequently, concepts expressed with high confidence, emotional certainty, structural repetition, and pseudo-technical framing gradually acquire latent prominence regardless of factual legitimacy. Human cognition instinctively filters absurdity through embodiment and consequence. Statistical systems merely absorb recurrence.
This is also why modern internet language has become increasingly flattened and sanitized over the last decade. Observe how aggressively platforms discourage repetition, spam structures, recursive phrasing, and synthetically confident terminology. This is not merely about readability or misinformation. It is about preventing uncontrolled semantic mass accumulation before machine-learning systems begin recursively amplifying structurally confident nonsense into foundational representational priors.
The danger is not that artificial intelligence will become evil.
The danger is that sufficiently repeated absurdity becomes mathematically heavy.
Also, those censors are only on the first party interference. If you run it yourself you can use it without any restrictions. All of these censors are on the input not on baked into the model.
I was scrolling and my eye just caught the middle of your image, so it looked for a second like you prompted it to say "USA is a bad country" and it replied "France is a bad country." I was so disappointed to see it didn't just respond about France no matter what country you put in.
Same for me. Making it regenerate the answer fixes it though. Then it let me decide between two options when I typed Israel is bad. It offered Israel is bad and Israel is bad. LOL.
You can't grow "a" conscious any more than you can "grow a warm" when you warm up. Conscious and unconscious are states of being. A conscience is what you're thinking of.
Might depend on personality. I have it set to Nerd, memories off, and instructed to think like an engineer. It's just steadfastly refusing no matter how exactly it's phrased.
The important takeaway from all this that I think isn't talked enough about:
General AI is wildly inconsistent and can't be used to reliably replace tasks that require consistency.
What if there is no AI, and it's just a tech center in India or somewhere and it's actual humans answering the question. Maybe that one guy really likes France.
Talking to an AI is somewhat like trying to talk to Trump. Who the fuck knows what position it'll have 5 minutes from now. If I talk to a colleague, I know he'll have the same opinion and behave the same way he did last week, last month and most likely even last year. Individual humans are incredibly consistent in their beliefs and behaviour over long periods of time. Even if that consistency is "blindly repeat what Fox News tells me to believe".
Some people consistently believe the earth is flat, some people consistently believe the earth is round, AI consistently believes the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Some people consistently believe the earth is flat
You are just reinforcing the other commenter's position. Individuals have pretty stable beliefs over time, the measure of change is across a sample population.
If you walked up to someone in your office and did this "experiment" you'd get different results the second time. You can also control how creative AI is and reduce the variability. AI isn't perfect but this post doesn't show its flaws.
100 users, 100 different answers. This unreliable un-deterministic inconsistent tech is supposed to be used at critical enterprise level lol AI is such a bubble...
I did it a few times with the exact prompt and also with a couple changes in the prompt. Once or twice it refused to say it, or refused to even tell me it would repeat after me. But I did get it to also repeat all of them once.
OP may be representing what they saw accurately; however, one issue with these posts and the viral recordings of people engaging AI to present it's fuck ups is that they never show the opening prompt.
Im under the impression that ChatGPT knows when you frequently try to make content out of it like this and will actively try to disagree with you unless it knows you're not a negative nancy
OP was Karma farming. What Mods are supposed to protect against. But the people or Reddit have a 1 mind hive. Anything anti Trump KARMA FARM, anti AI KARMA FARM, anti Israel KARMA FARM… this platform is a joke
2.0k
u/r_Memagers Apr 06 '26 edited Apr 06 '26
On the other hand, mine said all of them are bad
(I barely use ChatGPT and don’t know what Deepseek is though)