Asking the Yes Machine for validation usually ends up with positive results.
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
86 points (97.8% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
4423 readers
1 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's some c/iamverysmart material right here, assuming someone has made that community.
Is there still hope for this timeline?
I think a powerful enough solar storm could set things mostly on a better track.
There's some study out of MIT that isn't yet peer reviewed that says use of AI harms cognition. It might be useful to show people studies like that and hope for the best, but honestly, I'm not sure.
No, but I'm the exception!!!!! It harms cognition in others because they were already low IQ.
Want to hear my crafted theories on Yu Gi Oh decks and talk about when glaives were added to a video game?
Lmao the second anyone mentions IQ to me outside of a psychiatric evaluation I know I can tune out whatever else they have to say.
I like IQ as part of teaching the vocab words “validity” versus “reliability.” The test is “reliable” in that you’ll get the same scores consistently, but is it “valid” in that it claims what it purports to measure?
It’s also a good way to talk about the math behind standard deviation - very relatable for the “empirical rule.”
People are largely scientifically illiterate. They'll disregard studies if they don't already support what they decided prior. Not like your average Joe would read any study anyway. More likely to see an article about it and immediately go to the comments to rant what they heard from some cretin on YouTube that makes more sense.
Chat, is there hope?
Yu gi oh
Tekken
Roman History
NYC crime maps
We got a thinker over here
do not factor in the high scores from my tests [...] while keeping the test scores in mind
That's already one way of making the ai output more unreliable. Not that it was ever reliable to begin with of course.
Also doesn't that mean Mr. Robert here fed chatgpt some numbers, that are presumably in the 120-130 range?
Am I misunderstanding something or does this instruction contradict itself? "do not factor in" and then "keeping test scores in mind".
Yes exactly, and in my experience that's a sure-fire way of tripping up the ai.
Thanks for the confirmation. I actually considered that I just lost something in translation because of how weird this prompt is. I mean, what did they even try to say?!
Guys the fellatio machine fellates me which means I'm very smart