“Do you still assert as you initially did that Chat GPT is “barely” programmed with biases rather than my claim that it is ENTIRELY programmed with biases.” Yes. I still assert it. Why? Because the biases are part of the ecosystem of what’s considered knowledge. It’s nothing to “program it in”: you just use what’s everywhere. To intentionally “program it in” implies going AGAINST some prevailing winds. But it wasn’t. It just used what crap was laying around.

“Do you still assert as you initially did that Chat GPT is “barely” programmed with biases rather than my claim that it is ENTIRELY programmed with biases.”
Yes. I still assert it. Why? Because the biases are part of the ecosystem of what’s considered knowledge. It’s nothing to “program it in”: you just use what’s everywhere.
To intentionally “program it in” implies going AGAINST some prevailing winds. But it wasn’t. It just used what crap was laying around.
—
yeah. no argument here. When I mentioned knowledge is just comparing words in spreadsheets vs words in other spreadsheets that’s what i was implying.
Ontologies vs ontologies, all contextual and specialised, many conflicting, some cooperate somewhat,
—
hell if i know. you keep dancing around whatever your point is
—
I mean i can be pretty vague and abstract and slip around the point sometimes but damn man you got me beat in that dept.
—

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]