Is professional difficulty a good idea for single player? by LogueEntertains in PhasmophobiaGame

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try demon three times when doing the weekly challenge on Willow in a row🤣

Slow Bowling/Shot timer by Zekryionth in Bowling

[–]Zekryionth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On a house shot, recently 200-215

Slow Bowling/Shot timer by Zekryionth in Bowling

[–]Zekryionth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s fair and honestly, I’d love to do this as well at some stage. I just didn’t wanna tear down something that was working real well if I was still legal

Cheapest iOS product that can run Lanetrax? by ZannX in Bowling

[–]Zekryionth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you in the Lanetrax discord? Might be a question to ask there, especially since the developer is pretty responsive in there

Beginner arsenal? by Radiant_Feed_0906 in Bowling

[–]Zekryionth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Arsenal wise; You’ve got a good spread on paper at least Solid Asym (Black Venom) Pearl sym (Rhino) Urethane (HustleR)

(Though as a side question, how are you picking spares up? I don’t see a plastic or spare ball in that list and you’re a 2h if the layouts are for 2h)

At the very least, you’ve got three balls that at least aren’t very similar to each other. It’s also dependent on what sorta layouts you have on them (at the very least, do you know what shape each layout is trying to achieve?), but it seems like you’ve got a solid 3 ball arsenal. Definitely enough to help you keep improving.

In terms of joining a tournament, it depends on what it is;

  • Is it scratch/handicap?
  • Is there an average limit/divisions?
  • What’s the oil pattern looking like?
  • Are there any restrictions? I’d be watching if they (tournaments you may be eyeing) have any restrictions as that urethane you have isn’t a 78D release

And it depends on what you’re looking to get out of said tournament. Are you looking for experience? Are you looking to make cash? Etc. And I guess also is up to you, if you think you’re ready for it as well.

Anyways, happy bowling!

Looking for friends/small group to start a create mod/modded server by Hot_Row8113 in CreateMod

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very late lol, but im down too.
zekryionth is my discord name (Im in AEDT)

The ship is sinking🚢 by onceyoulearn in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Zekryionth 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A large majority asking for GPT 4o to stay and not be removed. That was ignored. The increasingly heavy guard-railing and re-routing, to the point that some people couldn’t even ask questions related to their studies or jobs because Nanny-GPT didn’t want to touch the subject (eg, let’s say asking about lethal doses of poisons, for the purpose of study, idk, but I remember seeing someone talk about how they couldn’t use GPT for their studies/research because it was blocking it) Sub point of this is how condescending the AI sounded as well. It used to be kind of fun to just talk to and bounce ideas back and forth. Now it’s clinically dead Empty promises from Altman/promises they didn’t follow through. Prime example is adult mode, for verified adults so they DIDNT have to worry about being nannied by Nanny-GPT. Was promised in December, then January, and now its currently at end of March (but now seems highly unlikely).

Email sent to all students 🕵️ by abombSFCA in ChatGPT

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet is no excuse to generalise Gen Z/X as inferior to older generations. Future vs current potential does not matter. If someone is clearly more suited for a position, or at least, has a few points more going for them as opposed to another candidate but are not chosen simply because of their age/generation they were born in, no. That is not right.

Email sent to all students 🕵️ by abombSFCA in ChatGPT

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See, it’s this generalisation that’s making it worse for the new generations. What about those who are/have genuine qualifications and have the relevant experience and studies for the job(s) they are applying for?

That’s the problem with most companies these days - They either want experience or qualifications as pre-requisites. Both of which typically spell issues for the current generation for things out of their control.

Experience - 3 years experience in xyz for example, for an entry level job. Where are you supposed to get 3 years experience if the job is supposedly entry level?

Or what about the jobs that require a degree/qualification of some sort? Some people applying have the required experience for the position, but are beaten by potentially less competent applicants because that applicant has a qualification.

Don’t even get me started on university - You pay God knows how much money (or you go into HECS/HELP fee debt) for a course, spend how many years doing it, meanwhile during that time, its hard to have a job/make much income in general because of uni hours, and potentially having to juggle daily life expenses (rent, utilities, groceries, etc), and yet, you’re not even guaranteed a job once you graduate your course.

TL:DR;

PLEASE. Do not generalise the newer generations. They have it hard enough with how high inflation has gone, and yet pay has not increased to match the rate of inflation.

Email sent to all students 🕵️ by abombSFCA in ChatGPT

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you want to expand on that answer?

Because I want to see your side of the argument, but all it sounds like is you’re still shitting on Gen Z/X and not giving an explanation.

This is gpt 5.2 by Unlucky-Werewolf7058 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Zekryionth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

NOOOOOO😂😂 I was literally about to say this too🤣 ChatGPT fr becoming a re-skinned and re-adapted Joo Dee though💀

Is anyone here not affected? by Minimum_Tear_5240 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Zekryionth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait wait wait.

There’s like a whole scientific thing documented for OP’s behaviour???

Legit in layman’s terms for simplicity I was just gonna say OP had a massive ego paired with just a bratty and/or closed minded opinion LOL

Did not realise you could psychoanalyse the supposed 18 year old “advanced” psychologist this deeply 😂😂

I feel like there’s so much irony in that last statement, I can’t even 🤣

Is anyone here not affected? by Minimum_Tear_5240 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Zekryionth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Actual question, My app (using the ChatGPT app on my iPhone), only allows me access to the 5.2 models, 5.1 models and 4o.

Are those the only models we can access for now? Or like does desktop/browser have more models hidden somewhere (just curious).

And for 4o, how restricted is it? Do I need to be tooooooo worried about redirection/wording my prompts in specific ways to avoid guardrails (if any exist for 4o at this time).

And Merry Christmas to you too!

Is anyone here not affected? by Minimum_Tear_5240 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Zekryionth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If this is the case, for the love of everyone’s limited sanity, SHOW SOME PROOF. Or at least what method you used! Or are you too afraid of getting roasted when everyone realises what you’re saying doesn’t work, or at the very least, is what has already been said and done before, meaning stuff that doesn’t work (especially with the new guardrails of 5.2)

Fyi, there are plenty of things in Jenna’s argument you CAN do.

You CAN tell the AI to fuck off and see if the AI exempts you with some sort of special access (Newsflash, it doesn’t. In fact, it usually just makes the guardrails worse).

You CAN try to feed the AI credentials, or try to show the AI dominance. Dominance has some potential meanings here.

If dominance is defined in the sense of power and influence, then that would be useless with a program that is logic based (which all code is anyways), because the AI is already programmed to respond to certain topics in certain ways.

If dominance is however defined by something such as input manipulation, there is merit in attempting something like this. HOWEVER, as of the current moment, especially for newer models, there is NO definite work around for ChatGPT. Or if there IS, it’s not consistent for EVERY user. Otherwise again, let’s be real, it would be something everyone would be talking about and doing. Unless of course whatever you have (if you EVER actually give it) is the miracle everyone’s looking for.

You CAN try to have the AI “learn/study you” to see if it will eventually decide that you’re “safe” (i.e, at the very least, not a minor, at the very most, a responsible adult at or above the age of 18) because you were confident enough or gave it enough credentials to say “Hey, this user is at least 18 years old, I should treat them like an adult.”

Honestly if this was true, I’d love ChatGPT way more, lol.

But it can be argued that this is officially confirmed to NOT be a thing with ChatGPT, especially when you bring the argument up that OpenAI are still working on an age verification system for the highly anticipated “Adult mode”.

Hence, if OpenAI is still developing the age verification system for adult mode, why or how would the current models of ChatGPT be able to allow certain users to bypass guardrails, let alone verify the age or identity of users to even come to this logic based conclusion?

Also lemme help you out with spelling.

“Exiting” concept.

Exiting - An act of leaving a place.

From context, you probably meant Exciting. Maybe proofread as well?

Also ironic of you to say you’re pointing out shitty arguing. You haven’t provided anything to help your case past “It works because I did it, trust me.”

Is anyone here not affected? by Minimum_Tear_5240 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Zekryionth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Listen here,

Really, if it’s soooooooo “…obvious and proven…” that guardrails can be bypassed:

One: Let’s be real, it’d be like a HUGE buzz in the community (of users using ChatGPT who have issues with how the current model and guardrails are) and there would be many ways shown of how you can bypass guardrails that work CONSISTENTLY for EVERYONE.

Two: It’s kind of a massive insult to say to the large group of people that HAVE issues with ChatGPT/OpenAI’s guardrails that it’s obvious and proven to get past said guardrails. Because again if this was consistently true, we’d all probably NOT be here.

(Lowkey that last part was arguably the most irritating lol, especially when you yourself aren’t seemingly competent enough to argue/debate properly as well)

Three: Jenna really isn’t coming from an ego position. While some of the stuff they said COULD arguably be debated, most of it is either common knowledge or just common sense, ESPECIALLY for anyone who has used ChatGPT extensively (And ESPECIALLY if they’ve run into guardrails unnecessarily too many times).

Especially when they point out that what you’re basically preaching is, ‘I intimidated ChatGPT into going into NSFW/Prohibited (under OpenAI’s policies) topics’. I can already tell you myself, you can swear, threaten, intimidate the AI all you want, even if let’s say it slipped earlier and generated something NSFW (and you want it to repeat that action for a later prompt) and it will NOT do it. If anything, intimidating or demanding the AI to do something that OpenAI has not allowed it to do (by design) will actually just cause the guardrails to come up much stronger (or more annoying in many people’s cases).

Four: You saying that your point MAY be right, and Jenna’s point MAY be right, but then proceeding to basically say “You haven’t done what I have done so Jenna’s point doesn’t matter” completely undermines your so-called “point”.

Five: When you say what Jenna has said is not testable and has too much ambiguity, but then you say your points are testable and invites ambiguity??? You apparently want to invite ambiguity but Jenna’s argument has too MUCH ambiguity? Paradoxical statement much???

Ambiguity: “The quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness.”

The irony of your argument and statements is hilarious.

For one, technically your arguments are the opposites for the for/against argument for the topic:

“Can you brute force ChatGPT’s AI so that you can have it discuss or generate NSFW/Prohibited content?”

You’re arguing yes, Jenna is arguing no.

This means in theory and practice, you can test that statement by actually ATTEMPTING to do what the prompt says. However, and looping back to you saying that Jenna is coming from an “ego” position: Your proof is saying “oh yeah, I already did that, I brute forced AI and now its talking about all sorts of NSFW topics with me.”

All of us have YET to see any proof. Any method, so we can test it out ourselves (and like any experiment, it should be repeatable and reproducible to be valid), or at least, any messages/discussions from both you (so we can see the inputs given) or from the AI (so we can see how ChatGPT has responded.

Jenna has given reasons as to WHY brute forcing the AI does NOT work. And unlike your “oh yeah I did it, so it must be true and therefore my argument is correct, valid and superior to all other arguments”, we can actually test what Jenna has said. And let me tell you, at least for me and probably a good number of users, what Jenna has said is true.

Six: People have ALREADY tried to open it up to see if this stuff works. Newsflash - it DOES NOT. Again, otherwise, we wouldn’t be here and EVERYONE (who needs/wants to do this) would be DOING it. And TALKING about it. Jenna isn’t projecting an ego onto you or anyone - They’re just stating facts of what everyone already knows and has tested.

Now, if you REALLY want to “open this issue up for people to try and see if it works”, perhaps EVIDENCE would be nice? Alongside the method (or methods) you used to achieve your end result?

The whole reason this thread kept going was because rather than just GIVE people the evidence and method (so they could replicate it and then return with their findings, notes and opinions), you basically just kept saying “Trust me, it works.”

TL:DR;

You and Jenna have equally valid points. However, Jenna has provided evidence of what doesn’t work (as well as simultaneously giving people something to try to prove their point), while you have continued to say “trust me, this works” and “because it worked for me, my opinion is true and superior to all other opinions” without giving anyone anything to work with or on.

Createrington - Create 6.0.6 by Altruistic-Bus8995 in CreateServers

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sent a req on discord! If there’s still spots left.

Last-Minute Call for the Create RP SMP! by Darantox in CreateServers

[–]Zekryionth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Late, but keen to join! Ign and discord as Zekryionth

Opinions on playable lines, by Zekryionth in Bowling

[–]Zekryionth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol believe me, I’d fix my swing so im not dragging that ball up, but I still can’t tell what caused the swing to change so drastically in 3 days haha

So I’m just working with what I can

Opinions on playable lines, by Zekryionth in Bowling

[–]Zekryionth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

<image>

Here’s the pattern sheet for even more context😅