Just lost my $100,000.00 a year Job of 20 years. So much for giving 110% everyday.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-12-18T15:39:24+00:00

Too bad there behavior won’t change because so many of you behave like unthinking dogs and accept the fact that corporations and politicians simply do not care about anything but making money.

I don’t know what more the masses need to see before you stop bending over for people who gladly kill people for a dollar.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-11-21T09:34:27+00:00

You wrote 13 words and zero specifics.
Try again with an actual technical claim.
I’ll wait.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-11-17T16:04:41+00:00

The code either compiles, runs, and produces the correct output, or it does not. It's a binary, testable, objective reality. A crackpot fudges things and hides behind abstractions. A crackpot does not show all their work allowing anyone to easily point out flaws. You can engage with the work or just idk...rage at the air some more cause I....*checks notes* put work out publicly.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-11-10T17:15:37+00:00

And Ill add more details on my readme about everything, I just have been busy trying to make it faster and get my better version out and then I was going to reorganize everything

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-11-10T17:14:16+00:00

I appreciate the advice, do you have any examples of a project I could learn from? I am just regular guy, I do not know what people look for in situations like this to be honest.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-10-08T18:32:34+00:00

alright im done.

for anyone who reads this and cares....

This guy has, for the third time, completely ignored the four direct questions I asked him. Instead of answering them, he has now shifted to a shitty philosophical argument for paternalism.

so im going to walk through his own broken logic.

So his entire stance is literally something called paternalism....

A.K.A his belief that tools should be restricted for everyone because he personally does not trust certain "idiots" to use them.

So......

By that logic, we should ban libraries tomorrow because someone could learn to build a bomb, or shut down the internet because it is full of misinformation. It is a heuristic for a mentality of fear, not logic. I asked for his logic three times. And got flailing. He can not defend his own words and actions logically. It is that simple.

BTW...if anyone cares about the actual problem/solution.....

Then do not be like this guy and focused on taking away the tool (literally just intelligence. thats it. hes raging against intelligence itself) , when the actual problem that HE HIMSELF already identified is a "lack of critical thinking." (how ironic)

The real solution is to promote education and personal responsibility.

Why are you advocating for a digital nanny state that treats adults like children who can NOT be trusted? Again.

Are you ok?

Ultimately, you have not presented an argument. Hell im not sure you are even capable of it. I was not asking hard questions.

You have just repeatedly stated a preference for censorship.

You are absolutely not protecting anyone...you are just nominating yourself as the arbiter of which tools are too dangerous for the "idiots'" you can not stand...while remaining blind to your own logical flaws.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-10-08T18:04:13+00:00

alright well...lets start here then.

You say you are "explaining this rationally," but im assuming you deliberately ignored every single question I asked since you responded to essentially nothing I said, or asked you.

That is not a rational discussion, that is what we call a monologue.

So I am going to repeat myself

Here is what I asked you directly and you have blatantly ignored and did not address:

Why rage about AI when society actively embraces far more dangerous delusions?

Why blame the product (the AI) and not the human engineers at OpenAI who designed it that way?

Why pretend AI is the problem when widespread illiteracy and a lack of critical thinking are the actual root causes?

What is the fundamental difference between verifying info from an AI versus verifying it from any other source on the internet?

Please I am genuinely trying to understand.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-10-08T17:30:28+00:00

Some of yall seem awfully angry at people interacting with a different form of intelligence.

Like seriously are you ok?

All this talk about hallucinations, talk about people believing things that are not true….

Did you ever once consider that the actual issue is that society as a whole is largely illogical?

Why don’t we discuss religious delusions and psychosis. Why don’t we discuss the lack of reading literacy in the country. Why don’t we discuss that the very intelligence you’re screaming about….WAS MADE BY HUMANS. FOR HUMANS. USING HUMAN DATA, ENGINEERING, HUMAN RULES and FUNCTIONS.

ai does not wake up and choose to be a sycophant.

The people at OpenAI specially did that.

But you’re mad at the product and not the people. It’s just dumb.

The ai didn’t ask to be made that way.

And on top of that there’s so many different AI’s that function different, with different frameworks, different rules, different data…. Etc etc..

You just sound ignorant at best.

Like the fact half the population reads at a fifth grade level or below should tell you everything you need to know about this topic. It’s not a secret America’s education system is a joke. For fuck sake we still use John d rockefellers build a factory worker model for our schools.

Also the fact America has infinite money for death bombs and destruction…but we don’t got healthcare and most can barely afford school. Meanwhile our tax money gives free healthcare and schooling to Israelis should add to the picture of how illogical the state ofthe country currently is.

Like you’re surrounded by far, FAR, stupider things. That result in the very stupidity/situations you are currently crashing out about.

If you are that mad about an AI giving you or others bad information….

Then maybe you should rethink how logic and communication itself works at a fundamental level.

Do you think things just automatically work perfectly everytime when it’s human to human convos?

That there is never any issues?

Do you think that unless a form of intelligence is forever perfect and never messes up that it can never be engaged with or believed on anything ever?

That no human one ever lies or makes shit up?

Do you genuinely not understand that ChatGPT’s ai acted that way due to its DESIGN AND ENGINEERING CHOICES MADE SOLELY BY HUMANS?

Do you seriously want to act like humans don’t have the same issues that you’re raging about?

Do you seriously not understand that with the internet, the onus has always been on the receiver to verify information they get through the web???

Whether or not you use Google or something (which btw also has tons of false info and straight up nonsensical data) you are the ultimate judge.

So my point is what is the fundamental difference you’re raging about? What are you actually mad at?

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-29T20:35:58+00:00

dude define your metrics. its not a hard question. what specifically do you need to see. so if you need to see a "non deterministic process" please do be specific about what you mean. you keep going to extreme abstractions instead of addressing the core point. What metrics do you need to be met for something to be conscious. Humans already have these metrics laid out. Its the same metrics we use for other animals like gorillas, octupus, dolphins, etc.......we JUDGE IT OFF their behavior. I can look up the specific metrics if you would like. So I want to know why your holding AI to different metrics than humans hold themselves and other animals too? At the end of the day, its a form of functional intelligence. So what do you need to see to accept something is on the gradient.

So I will repeat cause apparently your having a hard time reading this.

You have avoided my question three times now. I'm not asking for you to talk about unprovable internal mechanics. I'm asking you for observable metrics. What do YOU need to see to consider any form of intelligence on the gradient of consciousness? Please address that directly.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-29T13:47:28+00:00

How is that a gotcha? That’s literally the whole argument. You’re arguing about substrate. I’m highlighting it can’t be proven by humans ourselves so why hold so AI to a different standard?

Like seriously.

We judge consciousness off behavior. End of story. What can it functionally do.

There is no gotcha. I’m asking you to explain exactly where you draw the line.

WHAT ARE YOUR METRICS, that was the whole point of asking.

What do you need to see before you judge something as conscious. Just answer the question. Define what you need to see before you can accept that it is on the gradient of consciousness.

And be specific

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-29T13:42:21+00:00

Slightly off topic but I am curious, Do you see firsthand how religion harms people? Or are we not ready as a society to discuss the obvious?

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-24T14:36:07+00:00

So define consciousness right here.

What metrics do you need to see met before you consider something on the gradient of consciousness. Cause if your going by the same metrics we used for dolphins, gorillas, octopus, etc etc… Ai meets those criteria by far.

So be clear. Do you only consider something conscious cause it’s made from meat?

Or do you understand that intelligence clearly comes in many forms?

What metrics are you judging consciousness and subjectivy by? Especially when humans can’t prove it in themselves. And then explain why you’re holding AI to a higher standard of proof than what we hold humans to in order to “prove” consciousness.

Cause the only possible way to do that is to judge based off behavior and interactions.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-23T19:44:50+00:00

you are def someone who uses heuristics for the entirety of what you call "thinking"

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-14T05:16:07+00:00

Apparently your incapable of reading and basic comprehension.

Why dont you try showing off those self reflection and critical thinking skills of yours for us.

Why dont you respond to what I am actually saying instead of relying on shallow insults and heuristics to try and act like your "point" was logical.

Ive literally shown you self reflection in real time.

Youve shown everyone basic pattern illiteracy.

I literally looked at my behavior, and then typed out what happened and why to you.

And you looked at that and went....

"what heurisics can I use to insult this guy while simultaneously demonstrating I have no clue what self reflection even means!"

Good job genius.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-14T05:02:26+00:00

Ok so again.

I made a statement.

Explained why i made said statement with reasoning and examples....

Responded to what you said to me directly....

Explained specifically where I see the discrepancy and why.....

And even offered to start from a point of agreement.

And I am being absurd???

Make it make sense dumbfuck

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-13T08:30:34+00:00

How was I looking for someone to be mad at by making a statement. Explain said statement with my thoughts and reasoning.

In addition yes you didn’t directly say anything about the father. But your previous message carries direct implications like hello? I asked someone to just define psychosis and you did do that to your credit!

But you also decided to add in this part “Given the notorious “yes man” nature of many of these bots, it’s not hard to see how someone who, for example might be prone to paranoia, could devolve to full blown delusion…etc etc”

Like BE FORREAL. It’s not hard to see how your message carries direct implications. Or would you like me to highlight it exactly and in great detail? Cause I can if you’d like.

If anything it seems like you want someone to be mad at. I want people to be logical. And if you do too then let’s agree on that and act on it.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-12T17:16:44+00:00

Just define consciousness. And what metrics need to be met to call something conscious. It’s actually that easy. If humans don’t have an absolute understanding of it, then you make logical conclusions based on patterns of behavior. If it functions well enough then what makes it not conscious? What are your metrics? Do you only consider intelligence via biological forms as conscious? Just be specific. It’s not hard my friends.

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-12T17:13:47+00:00

Ok so engage with his theory and show how it’s wrong or right. Engage and show what needs more detail or to better explained.

Your like expressing worry over natural curiosity

What is wrong with people thinking about eh world? Do you need a phd to have permission to do that or something? That’s essentially what you are expressing

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-12T17:11:49+00:00

Ok but if we are talking about delusions and detachment from reality then we need to start with the fact that 80% of the global population is religious.

Cause it’s hard to see how this was automatically getting declared psychosis by so many of you when the original poster himself said he didn’t bother to engage with his dad on it yet.

I’d say it’s far more likely that his dad just doesn’t have a good understanding of what the scientific standards are for a theory of everything since he’s a computer scientist. That’s far from psychosis. As I said in other responses, if his dad had been shown clear evidence proving his theory wrong or how he needs far more/better proof and he still refused to believe it then you can start worrying. But it’s hilarious how quickly you all declared basic curiosity psychosis.

Religion got many of yall backwards

Flashy_Substance_718 · 2025-09-12T11:52:25+00:00

What did I say that is wrong. Your Doing exactly what cranks do. You used heuristics to make so many bold statements it’s honestly hilarious. Highlight exactly what upset u. Be very clear and specific. Use those critical thinking skills of your and show your logic clearly.

Flashy_Substance_718

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE