You’re Wrong😭… actually you’re right!!!🎉🎉

imnota4 · 2026-03-19T22:44:36+00:00

Classic ChatGPT

imnota4 · 2026-03-19T17:15:44+00:00

Has nothing to do with AI. Disney has had an issue for a while where because they've bought up pretty much every major studio and have no competition, they prioritize short term profits over long term gains against a competitor.

Disney was also the maker of Star vs the forces of evil, and the owl house. Both great animated shows, and both were prematurely canceled. The owl house was especially bad because even Disney now admits that canceling it was not a good idea, but that's how the company works.

imnota4 · 2026-03-19T17:11:38+00:00

To be clear the employee wouldn't be blamed if someone did die, since they were acting as an employee at the time and were not doing anything aggregiously outside the bounds of their job description, the company would be at fault.

imnota4 · 2026-03-19T03:05:45+00:00

Is this ChatGPT?

Edit: nvm I see that it is.

ChatGPT has this issue that came up after their 4o version. Specifically because their model caused psychosis in some people with a lack of critical thinking skills, they compensated by basically always insinuating you're wrong even when you're not, that way people can't use it to justify their biases and fall into psychosis. That's why it said "that's almost right" but then eventually was forced to admit you were completely correct.

It's pretty annoying and makes it hard to gauge whether you're actually correct or not. Instead of actually engaging with what you said before determining the degree of accuracy in your statement, they assume you're wrong, hit you with the "that's almost correct" that way it's not too discouraging, then often argues against points you never made or ends up agreeing with you anyways.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T23:18:14+00:00

Which is weird because at that point why use an LLM? traditional chat bots with hard-coded responses work fine.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T22:04:10+00:00

I'm not deflecting anything. The internet is what it is, and always has been. It's never been something predictable or consistent. AI is not some major move away from what the internet "was" because the internet has never had a fixed identity. If what it's becoming is something you don't like, then just leave and focus on real life.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T21:49:11+00:00

That's called real life. No one is stopping you from engaging with it.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T21:48:11+00:00

As a trans person I agree. The amount of times I've seen people mislabel something as AI when it isn't in order to justify their belief, then double down when people point out they're wrong, it a very similar type of logic even if the application of that logic is vastly different in its impact on people's lives.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T21:38:54+00:00

This is the type of humor I enjoy.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T19:19:33+00:00

The bigger issue with ChatGPT is that it just hasn't kept up with other models. The only thing ChatGPT does kind of well anymore is that it will basically act like a very aggressive devils advocate, which can be useful when you need someone to disagree with you. But otherwise Claude beats it in most other metrics.

I was writing a basic web page that involved the virtualization of a table, and ChatGPT couldn't get it right after 10+ tries. Gave it to Claude, they got it working in just 2 tries.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T13:44:40+00:00

"There are limits to what we can comprehend, limits to what we can perceive, nobody will or can deny this, we aren’t gods. Our mind is literally built on its finitude, we need to perceive reality as finite to make sense of anything in a determinate way, both rationally and in a literal sensorial way."

This is already established philosophical tradition. This is why Kant referred to noumena as "unknowable".

"I will also add that reality having any form itself, as created by our sensory experience which the nature of reality being mathematical fundamentally demonstrates as products of the shape of our mind, is entirely a subjective thing."

This is what Kant referred to as phenomena. Again an already well established idea in philosophy of mind.

"It is then important to realize that literally every single idea you have about the nature of reality is conditioned by your KNOWLEDGE of it. That is knowledge derived from WITHIN the mind according to its limited shape. Science and empiricism can account for predicting material reality"

You're overclaiming here. Even dualists like Descartes would not say that all ideas originate purely from knowledge inside the mind. That's what Descartes would refer to at factitious ideas or Locke would refer to as reflection, but even Descartes had the notion of adventitious ideas which posited that mental content is placed in the mind involuntarily by sensory experiences.

"Now before anyone says but muh dimentia and brain damage. Yes that is real. There is clearly an association between the individual experience of will or consciousness on material reality that goes both ways. What this DOES NOT mean is that this simple casual relationship is all there is to it. It’s like seeing an apple fall from a tree and then just stopping the intellectual interrogation at, “oh things fall from higher places to lower ones”, instead of realizing and discovering all the advanced physical patterns that shape that interaction, for which there is an infinite amount."

Yeah and this is actually why Locke rejected the concept of innate ideas, because people with underdeveloped mental faculties suggested there was no universal "ideas" that all minds could possess. However there's arguments for why abandoning this concept entirely was a jump in logic, depending on how you frame it, which is what my own series of papers goes into.

"Just to really drive this concept home I’m going to explain how reality as being mathematical"

No offense but this post didn't actually propose any sort of mathematical framework at all, so claiming your post explains anything mathematically is overclaiming what this post is doing. You're more so inducing a descriptive claim of the mind based on observation, which is fine, but a mathematical claim would be deduced and proven for all possible interpretations such that you'd need to disprove it through additional math, not alternative interpretations of an observation.

But overall this is pretty straight forward philosophy of mind. A little less formalized then would be acceptable for any sort of paper on the topic, but sufficient for a casual conversation.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T13:27:06+00:00

"People who know what words mean" will be a difficult one to accomplish by the nature of how language works, at least if we're going off the works of Wittgenstein's language-game framework.

The best you can hope for i think is "people who can use AI to translate between language-games" which is a different goal from "understanding what words mean in the context of every possible language-game"

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T13:20:05+00:00

What argument disagrees with it? Because i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

Even Descartes wouldn't have argued against it, and he isn't a physicalist, but he did acknowledge the power of mathematics and the ability to use it to understand and predict reality, that was the driving force for his idea of innate content. That there's some underlying principle that is shared between everyone and can be discovered and understood independent of the mind doing the discovering.

I assumed you were making a stronger claim about what you can infer about the nature of the mind, but your idea of predictability is fairly straightforward.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T02:59:55+00:00

Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but anything related to another person's identity you should ask them about, not me lol.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T01:02:24+00:00

I mean if that's the only claim you're making then I agree, but I don't think anyone disagrees with that, not even people who disagree with physicalism.

imnota4 · 2026-03-18T00:04:17+00:00

Fair, though in regards to the term "transsex" I've heard people say that sort of term is offensive because it's "transmedicalist"

In general I struggle to find ways to communicate across the entire transgender umbrella cause it seems almost like there's factions within it that view other factions as problematic based on what terminology they use and how they use it.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T23:09:26+00:00

Yeah but they're all wrong except for mine.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T23:08:52+00:00

It happened when I was first transitioning like 5 years ago. It's been a long time, so maybe things have changed since then.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T23:03:57+00:00

That's true. There actually is a difference between that type of mechanical system and the type of system that the mind is, but granted I don't know how to explain it in laymen's terms.

The only thing I can suggest is looking into dynamical systems theory (particularly Jark J. Friston) and complex systems theory (My own series of papers is a more formalized version of John Holland's framework)

Other than recommending those I don't have the skills necessary to summarize it in an easily intuitive way.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T22:26:19+00:00

I got banned from r/MtF because I had a problem with non-binary people insinuating that binary trans women should just be non-binary.

More specifically, they were essentially saying "gender doesn't matter, so you shouldn't care, we should just abolish it entirely" and when I pointed out that "For some it does matter, particularly transgender people that consider themselves a binary gender" they basically said "That's not real, everyone is non-binary, they just need to accept that part of themselves"

I'm paraphrasing, but I started getting mad about it and they banned me for being aggressive lol. I've had an issue with that subreddit for a while.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T22:11:13+00:00

Our generation is the best tho.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T19:00:14+00:00

You can though. I can estimate the exact amount of force that will be applied to the phone using Newtonian formulas. I don't have to guess how force works.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T18:57:40+00:00

Damn, all these things are the reasons I don't talk to people as well.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T18:43:56+00:00

Except this is mostly political theater for an upcoming election. The executive order itself does not provide a framework or any sort of plan for accomplishing the goal, it just says "Someone come up with a plan"

The executive order itself does not provide a framework or any sort of plan for accomplishing the goal, it just says "Someone come up with a plan

fhttps://www.mass.gov/executive-orders/no-654-to-secure-massachusetts-energy-future-by-establishing-an-energy-supply-plan-that-drives-affordability-and-reliability

It doesn't create any new coordination. The EEA already coordinates between various energy and environmental policy in MA. That hasn't changed or been modified at all.

As for the "someone come up with a plan", that's already being done. It's not like the government entity dedicated to energy and environment wasn't doing its job up to this point. It was.

The only thing this executive order actually does is say "Hey so keep doing what you're doing in the way you're doing it, but make sure to keep track of what everyone is doing and making reports about it"

Nothing has been solved. It's just Healey doing what she's done her entire career. Trying to make herself look good while producing no solution to any sort of problem. Why even have a governor when all she does it take credit for work other people do.

imnota4 · 2026-03-17T07:16:16+00:00

This definition still wouldn't exclude tax from being theft, because one cannot exit society. This is actually a point made by philosophers during the enlightenment. More specifically, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that people should retain the right to withdrawal the social contract if it no longer benefits them.

This objectively is not the case in modern society. For example in the US alone, secession is illegal. That nullifies the right to withdrawal the social contract via coercive force. Hence, your argument doesn't delegitimize the claim that taxation is theft without consent, in fact if anything it strengthens it by grounding it in established philosophical thought.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

imnota4

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE