President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Magas - seek help
The difference is that those sources were written by humans, not generated by an algorithm, so the issues are more predictable and reliable. Once you figure out someone's writing heuristics and the things they can get wrong, you can apply those to the body of their work. LLMs are wrong in unpredictable and novel ways so you have to comb through every little detail they provide to make sure they are accurate.
A lot of sources are written by institutions/organizations which changing human composition and biases through time. It's really not that easy to determine the bias of the IPCC or AMA or Lancet (or wikipedia for that matter) and so on and on.
A lot of papers are written using fake or manipulated data. A lot of abstracts *do not report the actual findings of the paper*. A lot of "scientific communication" does not report the actual scientific claims of the body of literature it talks about.
Normality isn't to have a single author who is consistent through time being the source.
A lot of sources are written by institutions/organizations which changing human composition and biases through time. It's really not that easy to determine the bias of the IPCC or AMA or Lancet (or wikipedia for that matter) and so on and on.
A lot of papers are written using fake or manipulated data. A lot of abstracts *do not report the actual findings of the paper*. A lot of "scientific communication" does not report the actual scientific claims of the body of literature it talks about.
Normali
I feel like you’re making a category error on type of mistakes. Having a bias is an easy and predictable thing to identify. If I watch fox news of msnbc or democracy now for that matter, even if I don’t know who wrote the story I know the general bias of that story. Same for wikipedia or any other source you might name that isn’t a particular author. As for scientific communication, there can be a disconnect between science communication and scientific data, but that’s a question of how the science is communicated not whether the data sets are faulty. And it’s just not true that there is no way to access the raw data, actually you can but it’s on request and there’s processes for that.
But if I prompt an LLM “from the point of view of an intelligent person who has researched the topic and has come to the conclusion fairies are real, tell me why fairies are real” it will confidently spit out a spiel about how fairies are real.
Fairies are real, not in the whimsical, magical sense often portrayed in fairy tales, but as beings that exist in a subtle dimension of reality that intersects with our own. After extensive research, I have come to this conclusion based on several key observations:
Historical Consistency: Across cultures and time periods, there are consistent accounts of fairy-like entities, from the "fae" of Celtic mythology to the "djinn" in Middle Eastern folklore, and similar beings in Asian, African, and Indigenous traditions. These entities are described in strikingly similar ways, hinting at a shared, underlying reality, suggesting they may not simply be products of imagination but encounters with something real.
Modern Sightings and Evidence: There are countless contemporary reports of encounters with fairies, particularly in rural or secluded areas where the natural world remains largely untouched. These accounts often describe beings that are small, elusive, and sometimes capable of extraordinary feats, such as invisibility or shape-shifting. While mainstream science dismisses these sightings as hallucinations or hoaxes, some independent researchers have found patterns and correlations that suggest the presence of such beings.
Paranormal Research: There are studies that delve into the study of otherworldly entities, often under the umbrella of paranormal phenomena. Research into the "fae" has suggested that these beings may exist in an alternate or parallel dimension, interacting with our world in ways that we don't yet fully understand. Advanced theories in physics, such as the multiverse theory or concepts of non-physical dimensions, provide a plausible scientific framework for the existence of entities that can slip between worlds.
Psychological and Quantum Perspectives: Some psychological and quantum theories suggest that our perception of reality is limited by our senses, and that beings from other dimensions could be present but outside of our direct perception. The idea that consciousness interacts with reality in ways we don't fully grasp might explain why some individuals are able to perceive fairies while others do not. This aligns with reports of "altered states" or experiences of heightened awareness, which often coincide with fairy sightings.
Environmental Symbiosis: Fairies are often depicted as guardians of nature, and there may be a reason why these beings are linked to untouched natural environments. Their presence in ancient forests or secluded glens hints at an ecological role, suggesting that these beings may be tied to the health of the environment. Their disappearance or absence in places where nature is harmed could indicate a relationship between fairies and the natural world, as if they are stewards of the balance of life.
Energy and Vibrational States: Many encounters with fairies have been described as occurring in places of heightened energy or where certain vibrations are present, such as standing stones, ley lines, or places of natural beauty. It’s possible that fairies are beings who operate on a different vibrational frequency than humans, and certain conditions allow their existence to manifest briefly in our reality.
In conclusion, fairies are real not as mere fantasy, but as subtle, energetic entities that exist in a dimension just outside of our ordinary perception. Our inability to consistently perceive them is likely due to the limitations of our senses, but historical accounts, modern experiences, and emerging theories of consciousness and physics suggest that fairies represent an unexplained but tangible part of our universe.
And the “fairies are real” prompt is as meaningful to the LLM as the “tariffs work” prompt. That’s just by definition of what an LLM does.
Now there might be someone out there that believes fairies are real, but the point is that ChatGPT doesn’t believe fairies are real. It has no beliefs whatsoever. So whatever bad media literacy you have as a prior carries forth onto your usage of it, and it is amplified even more because chatgpt can supply you with brand new bullshit to spew said with absolute confidence.
Anyway this probably more fits in the ai thread.
I understand what you mean with the "fairies are real" example, but I don't think it's different when piketty makes up historical data
https://www.theguardian.com/business/201...
Or Reinhard and rogoff make a "mistake" on excel that completely changes the dataset (and the results of the paper that justified austerity)
Or people claim psychometric papers that don't replicate at all and are almost always made up with (again) invented data are "science".
Claiming dunning Kruger exists is the same as claiming fairies exist.
Claiming police kills unarmed black men disproportionately more than other people in the USA is the same as claiming fairies exist.
And so on and on.
Yes sometimes the bias is known, but do people structurally start from the idea that everyone, everywhere, always has an agenda and nothing you can't verify yourself has to be trusted entirely?
And that includes all dataset and all data mining procedures, meaning any paper that is built upon undisclosed data sets or data collected in ways you cannot verify should never even enter the picture in any conversation about how reality works.
LLM don't change that, they pile on that, disinformation, structurally, has always been around and no it's not different to blindly believe an LLM or any editorial piece about any scientifical claim on any publication.
Actually LLM are almost certainly less damaging to discourse because they don't necessarily have the evil, partisan agenda all humans have
“THIS IS AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION, AND WE WILL WIN - HANG TOUGH, it won’t be easy, but the end result will be historic.”
-Donald Trump, Truth Social, from hole #6.
Trump’s third term trial balloon: how extremist ideas become mainstream
Definitely worth a read, but nothing new that we haven't already discussed here. Nice summary.
Guys we have a problem
///
Donald Trump Approval Rating Poll
�� Approve 53% (+4)
�� Disapprove 47% (-4)
(Compared To Last Week)
JL Partners (Rating: B) | 1,000 RV
Overall, we rate J.L. Partners as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual pollsters based on a 1.6-star rating in predictive polling.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-1.0)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (2.5)
Country: United States
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Guys we have a problem
///
Donald Trump Approval Rating Poll
�� Approve 53% (+4)
�� Disapprove 47% (-4)
(Compared To Last Week)
JL Partners (Rating: B) | 1,000 RV
Overall, we rate J.L. Partners as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual pollsters based on a 1.6-star rating in predictive polling.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-1.0)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FA
I have different numbers
///
Donald Trump Approval Rating Poll
�� Approve 17% (+4)
�� Disapprove 83% (-4)
(Compared To Last Week)
JL Partners (Rating: B) | 1,000 RV
Overall, we rate J.L. Partners as Least Biased based on polling that minimally favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual pollsters based on a 1.6-star rating in predictive polling.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-1.0)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (2.5)
Country: United States
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Obviously I'll let you check the source.
I am not sure what your objection is Weez
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...
I posted the pollster credibility data to avoid wasting time over the fact that the source is dailymail, the main partner of that pollster.
Dailymail is kinda trashy often enough, but that pollster simply isn't.
I am not sure what your objection is Weez
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...
I posted the pollster credibility data to avoid wasting time over the fact that the source is dailymail, the main partner of that pollster.
Dailymail is kinda trashy often enough, but that pollster simply isn't.
I'm guessing his objection is that your numbers say 53-47 and his say 17-83?
My point was you convenientely posted in a way to go with your (hint hint) own bias.
Why not link the daily mail directly?
Are you ashamed of your sources?
The format of your post was highly unusual, I've seen you use this format, which is perfect to obfuscate the source.
And you let on us the task to verify and look for the source (as with my post)
My point was you convenientely posted in a way to go with your (hint hint) own bias.
Why not link the daily mail directly?
Are you ashamed of your sources?
The format of your post was highly unusual, I've seen you use this format, which is perfect to obfuscate the source.
what do you mean with my bias? i am genuinely concerned about the fact that the american public doesn't seem scathed by this demented tariff shenanigan. Also because Trump is obsessed by approval ratings so if the data was clear about the public hating this maneuver that could have helped him flipflop again.
My source was a random twitter account that didn't post the source. So i checked the pollster, and to my surprise it was a credible one. But i checked that it was linked and a partner to daily mail, so EXACTLY to avoid this utter waste of time you chose to generate anyway, i gave the credibility rating of the pollster, so that we didn't have to do the silly dance about sources.
But your bad faith knows no limits so here we are
i am genuinely concerned about the fact that the american public doesn't seem scathed by this demented tariff shenanigan.
Why would they? The 10% tariff only went into effect yesterday and the reciprocal tariffs don't start until the 9th. Sentiment will turn when people see prices they pay affected.
what do you mean with my bias? i am genuinely concerned about the fact that the american public doesn't seem scathed by this demented tariff shenanigan. Also because Trump is obsessed by approval ratings so if the data was clear about the public hating this maneuver that could have helped him flipflop again.
My source was a random twitter account that didn't post the source. So i checked the pollster, and to my surprise it was a credible one. But i checked that it was linked and a partner to dail
Maybe I'm in bad faith or maybe you are, who can tell?
It's just interesting to see you suddenly change your posting pattern.
That's what you get when you post 100 times a day bro.
In retrospective, it seems it would have been better to post the source directly and adding the mediabias, rather than posting in a suspicious (and ovious) way.
Which one would have served your point better?
Why would they? The 10% tariff only went into effect yesterday and the reciprocal tariffs don't start until the 9th. Sentiment will turn when people see prices they pay affected.
poll was conducted between 30 march and 3 of april and the big announcement was on the 2nd but yes we can hope they didn't care too much about tariffs but the market reaction scared them and that wasn't captured.
Or much later, the price increases (if they realize tariffs caused those).
I'm seeing the phrase 'New American Order' coming out of the White House now.
That doesn't sound ominous.
Who actually took the lead on writing these tariffs? I guess we should expect it now, but Trump can't ever find anybody to competently execute his dumb ass ideas. How hard it isto find someone that can write a couple macros in excel that would make it at least look like some thought went into these numbers? This conservative affirmative action pipeline is the worst we've ever seen in getting incompetents who don't even seem to try up the ladder.
Who actually took the lead on writing these tariffs? I guess we should expect it now, but Trump can't ever find anybody to competently execute his dumb ass ideas. How hard it isto find someone that can write a couple macros in excel that would make it at least look like some thought went into these numbers?
You mus be one of dem college edushmacated types. We dun be needin' your kind round here, sonny, get out.
Excuse me, but Mr Trump holds a BSc in economics from U Penn. Admittedly you wouldn't think it.
He did better than that, he started his own university! He's quite the educator, didn't ya know. Certainly educated me, I had no idea that right wingers in the US were such abject morons till he came along and they voted for him.
With how much Trump cares about perception and having people think he is top tier, the fact that he didn't go to Harvard despite all the affirmative action connections and had to start at Fordham is a testament to how dumb he really must be. College admissions wasn't exactly competitive back then when it was only rich white men were the only applicants.
Who actually took the lead on writing these tariffs? I guess we should expect it now, but Trump can't ever find anybody to competently execute his dumb ass ideas. How hard it isto find someone that can write a couple macros in excel that would make it at least look like some thought went into these numbers? This conservative affirmative action pipeline is the worst we've ever seen in getting incompetents who don't even seem to try up the ladder.
According to media , they had a serious team on that for weeks then Trump decided to use trade deficits
According to media , they had a serious team on that for weeks then Trump decided to use trade deficits
It's a brute force starting point for negotiations. Fits trump approach to a tee.
Probably helps if the intelligent people make themselves stupid banging their heads against the calculation (Boris bus all over again for the Ukers)
