this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
477 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

12066 readers
2515 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 117 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Wouldn’t senators have access to actual experts who, unlike ChatGPT, would be correct close to 100% of the time?

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 90 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But those experts don't tell Mr. Senator "you're absolutely right!" often enough.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

In this particular case, I can't imagine they'd tell him that with any frequency that might at all be considered "often."

EDIT: to be clear by "they" I meant experts, not AI.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I think you underestimate how sycophantic these AIs can be. Especially once you push back a little and insist on having it your way.

[–] urushitan@kakera.kintsugi.moe 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You've hit the nail on the head.

[–] Papierkorb@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's the smoking gun

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 2 points 2 weeks ago

I was referring to the experts, not the AI.

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 1 points 2 weeks ago

You’re absolutely right!

[–] cannedtuna@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah but that would require effort and why not shake the magic box and see what falls out instead?

[–] SPRUNTnsfw@fedinsfw.app 5 points 2 weeks ago

Not only effort, but money.

There's also the possibility that an actual expert will tell you stuff you don't want to hear. GPT will lead you down whatever path you're already on like a hotdog hanging from a stick leads a dog.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Every senator and their staff are constantly orbited by lobbyist "experts" offering to write new laws for them. Actual experts are working at institutions, and are not taking senators to expensive dinners by helicopter and limousine.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 20 points 2 weeks ago

A senator could get an actual expert on a phone call in minutes if they wanted. Fucking no-name YouTubers are able to talk to experts all the time. It’s not hard! But I am guessing you are more referring to the dinners part. It really needs to be illegal to give elected officials anything.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's a mix, but yes. The oil companies are very interested in making sure the "experts" are theirs.

ChatGPT might be better, depending on how often he "corrects" it.

Also a future issue of how much influence these companies have. I hear NYT is already targeting ads at AI.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There used to be whole ass boards appointments for this, like usa had the Office of Technology Assessment working for Congress, where they paid various experts from various fields to come in and review stuff and give advice.

So... what happened?

[–] gedfromgont@piefed.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago

And share the car with these filthy plebs, I think not!

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

All the "experts in Medicare/ Medicaid" in DC are payed shills of the health insurance industry recommending they both be dissolved or privatized.

Honestly chatgpt might be better as it does have a tendency to "both sides" political topics. Of course you can inject your own biases in the question and chatgpt will usually agree with you, but it'll at least sometimes give you pushback which an insurance lobbyist will never do.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

I was thinking the same thing, he might actually be learning something

[–] Klox@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

Republicans consulting expertise? Needed a good laugh.

[–] Town@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 weeks ago

Senators are also inundated with biased sources, I imagine tuberville has been in an echo chamber for his entire life. A basic AI response might actually be more nuanced and honest.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lmao. Your unflinting biological bias is hilarious. Even with the qualifier that is absurd

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You’re right that it’s nowhere near 100% like I suggested. But ya, I wear that bias with pride.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I get your bias, but in this instance the human experts he'd be listening to would be health insurance lobbyists, not people who care about others' health. ChatGPT, which is obviously incapable of feeling compassion, may very well have more compassion for human life compared to those.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago

Until those medical lobbyists pay OpenAI to make chatgpt give biased advice

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that he’d be listening to only lobbyists. Theoretically, one could surround themselves with a diverse group of actual experts.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lmao. Taking trump and republicans over ai

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

Wow, that’s quite a jump.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

who, unlike ChatGPT, would be correct close to 100% of the time?

You're very optimistic about human experts.