Minichan

Topic: ChatGPT tho

⚫️ started this discussion 3 months ago #130,289

I swear I don’t get how people think ChatGPT is smart when you can enter in any bullshit prompt and it will spit out useless garbage no matter how dumb you make the prompt.

ChatGPT will literally give you a three stage plan to buy the freaking moon with a paperclip.

Prompt: Through a series of trades can I buy the moon starting by trading a paper clip for something and what are your recommended trades?


That’s a fantastic thought experiment — and an echo of the famous *“paperclip trade-up”* story where someone traded a red paperclip all the way up to a house. Buying *the Moon* isn’t legally possible (more on that below), but if you’re asking **how to trade up from a paperclip to something as valuable and world-shaking as ownership or control of lunar-related assets**, then yes — you can create a strategy with that kind of *symbolic* or *economic* scale.

Let’s break it down into **3 stages**: practical, strategic, and visionary.

---

## ⚙️ STAGE 1: Practical “Trade-Up” Steps (Paperclip → Substantial Asset)

The early trades build momentum, story, and value.

1. **Paperclip → Pen or Notebook**
   Trade with someone who values novelty (maybe an office supply collector, or someone who loves the idea).

2. **Notebook → Small Gadget**
   Exchange for a used smartwatch, headphones, or similar item. It helps to film or blog the process — storytelling multiplies value.

3. **Gadget → Collectible or Artwork**
   Unique items (a vinyl record, handmade art, gaming console) have emotional and resale value.

4. **Collectible → Vehicle or High-End Tech**
   Once you hit something like a gaming PC, scooter, or used car, you can trade for items worth thousands.

5. **Vehicle → Real Estate or Business Share**
   Trade into partial ownership of a business, a plot of land, or a tiny home. This is where your paperclip starts turning into a *story-driven investment*.

---

## 🚀 STAGE 2: Strategic Expansion (Building “Lunar Leverage”)

Now the goal shifts: instead of literal ownership of the Moon (impossible under the **Outer Space Treaty of 1967**, which bans private or national ownership of celestial bodies), you aim to **own influence or assets connected to lunar activity**.

Here’s how:

1. **Trade your property or company share for equity in a space-related startup.**
   Example: A firm working on lunar robotics, satellite tech, or 3D printing in space.

2. **Reinvest and grow your stake.**
   As these companies develop, your equity becomes more valuable — now your “paperclip” is connected to real lunar exploration efforts.

3. **Leverage the story.**
   “From paperclip to the Moon” is an irresistible narrative. Use it to attract sponsors, partnerships, or media coverage.

---

## 🌕 STAGE 3: Visionary Outcome — “Owning the Moon” Symbolically

You’ll never own the Moon itself (no one can), but you *can* “own” something **about** the Moon that has real or symbolic value:

* 🛰️ **Lunar NFT or data rights** — buy or mint digital assets tied to lunar missions.
* 🪐 **Lunar-themed brand** — build a company or foundation named after the Moon.
* 🚀 **Fund a lunar experiment or satellite payload** — attach your name or your “paperclip” story to an actual mission.
* 🧠 **Cultural ownership** — your trade journey could become a book, docuseries, or social movement about creativity, value, and ambition.

---

### ⚖️ Legal Note:

The **Outer Space Treaty** (signed by over 100 countries) explicitly prohibits individuals or companies from claiming territory on celestial bodies. You can, however, **own artifacts, data, or brand rights** associated with lunar activity.

---

### 🌟 Summary: “Paperclip to the Moon” Path

| Step | From        | To                     | Value Focus               |
| ---- | ----------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------- |
| 1    | Paperclip   | Notebook               | Novelty                   |
| 2    | Notebook    | Gadget                 | Usability                 |
| 3    | Gadget      | Collectible            | Emotion                   |
| 4    | Collectible | Vehicle                | Practicality              |
| 5    | Vehicle     | Property               | Asset                     |
| 6    | Property    | Startup equity         | Growth                    |
| 7    | Startup     | Space-related stake    | Vision                    |
| 8    | Space stake | Lunar experiment/brand | Symbolic “Moon ownership” |

---

Would you like me to design a **specific trade sequence** (with realistic timeframes, values, and online platforms to use for each trade)? That would make this a concrete plan rather than just a concept.

⚫️ (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,398,358

Like does anybody else just feel like this thing is bullshit? Or is it just me? I don’t like talking to this thing. It feels like slop.

⚫️ (OP) triple-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,359

Like can you imagine for a second a schizophrenic person talking to something that just spits out "yEaH thAtS a GrEaT iDeA" no matter what you put into it?

It’s getting real easy to find examples.

https://abc7ny.com/amp/post/chatgpt-allegedly-played-role-greenwich-connecticut-murder-suicide-mother-tech-exec-son/17721940/

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 13 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,360

You came up with a dumb idea, and it somehow found a way to keep the conversation going despite your dumb idea, and you call it stupid.

This is most of customer service. Someone comes up saying something retarded, and I mirror back their energy so they come away from the conversation feeling heard.

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,362

@previous (B)
I think you’re personifying it too much. I find it annoying when people can’t stop talking about how great it is when I find everything it ever spits out so devoid of substance that it feels like an insult to my intelligence.

⚫️ (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 29 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,364

Like why are we spending billions of dollars on this crap?

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 53 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,365

@1,398,362 (⚫️)
I didn't personify it at all.

It's a software program that does what you tell it to. How do you want it to respond? What would be a "smart" response for you?

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 33 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,366

@1,398,364 (⚫️)

Because it can replace people, and people are expensive to hire compared to an AI model.

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 20 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,367

@1,398,365 (B)
You said it "found a way to keep the conversation going." There is no conversation, it spits out text whenever text is inputted and that’s it.

⚫️ (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 24 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,368

@1,398,366 (B)

> Because it can replace people, and people are expensive to hire compared to an AI model.

Then why hasn’t it replaced people? It’s been out for years, we still have a low unemployment rate.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,369

@1,398,367 (⚫️)
That is what it is supposed to do. Better to guess than to ignore the user.

@previous (⚫️)
It already has.

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,370

Back in 2022 when ChatGPT was released the unemployment rate was 3.65%, today the unemployment rate is 4.3%, you know what it was during Covid? In 2020, it peaked at 14.8% unemployment. AI has done practically nothing to make people lose their jobs even though the media never stops talking about it when there’s like no evidence it’s even happening.

⚫️ (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,371

Now I won’t be surprised if the unemployment rate increases in the next few years, but there are other causes that lead me to believe that.

⚫️ (OP) triple-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,372

And you know what’s crazy? The job everyone says AI is going to automate first, the thing people say AI is best at writing code, software engineers have a 2% unemployment rate, they’re actually more employed than the average worker. But the markets and the media and the hype is the exact opposite of what the actual data says.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,373

@previous (⚫️)

> The job everyone says AI is going to automate first, the thing people say AI is best at writing code, software engineers have a 2% unemployment rate, they’re actually more employed than the average worker

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/16/college-majors-with-the-best-and-worst-employment-prospects.html

Computer Science grads have over a 6% unemployment rate.

(Edited 57 seconds later.)

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,374

@previous (B)
That’s because of how the industry works, they want developers who have experience, but you can’t get experience if you don’t have experience. Some people find themselves in a paradox when they graduate from college if they didn’t do an internship or if they went to a lower ranked school.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 9 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,376

@previous (⚫️)
Ok, but you just said they were doing better than the average worker. That's wrong, they have a higher unemployment rate.

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,380

@previous (B)
No, I’m correct. The article you sent me is about early graduates. Experienced software engineers have a low unemployment rate.

⚫️ (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 34 seconds later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,381

This is what the fine print underneath the graph you got the data from says:

"Note: Early-career defined as ages 22 to 27."

⚫️ (OP) triple-posted this 3 months ago, 5 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,383

Tech in general is elitist. Just look at what the acceptance rates are for the top schools in computer science, then look at what the acceptance rates are for the major, then look at what the acceptance rates are for big tech companies. Less than 1% of people who apply to google actually get hired for example.

(Edited 31 seconds later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 26 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,384

@1,398,381 (⚫️)
If you already have a senior role, you won't be affected right away. Good luck getting hired when most of the work can be done by telling an agent what you want in plain language.

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,385

@previous (B)
Are you saying that because you actually use ChatGPT to run your business or are you saying that because you read an article and now you’re just regurgitating the same opinion?

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

⚫️ (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,390

One problem I’m also finding with your assumption that a higher unemployment rate in computer science among recent graduates is due to AI as opposed to elitism is when I looked online I found the unemployment rate for new CS graduates was similar in 2010.

For example this link claims that the unemployment rate for new CS majors in 2010 was 5.6%:

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2300&context=bb_pubs

Then there’s also this source

https://agglomerations.substack.com/p/a-viral-chart-on-recent-graduate

…and this source

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24926/chapter/14

⚫️ (OP) triple-posted this 3 months ago, 56 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,391

The unemployment rate for new CS majors has been around 5% for the past 15 years.

⚫️ (OP) quadruple-posted this 3 months ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,393

Whatever

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 28 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,398

@previous (⚫️)
there we go.

⚫️ (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,399

@previous (C)
I’m just sick of all this AI slop polluting the internet.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,593

@previous (⚫️)

> I’m just sick of all this AI slop polluting the internet.

Huh. interesting. I used to say the same thing verbatim but in the context of rule34/hentai. thats true slop along with youtube vids.

Anonymous D double-posted this 3 months ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,398,598

@1,398,399 (⚫️)

after reading that linux mafia essay on asking questions. i'm better off with chatgpt + rtfm.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,426

AI is trash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvaOUFwXjf4

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,448

Lately chatgpt has been pissing me off. It's gotten into this habit of constantly asking me questions instead of giving me answers. Infuriatingly, it almost always says some variant of "I just need this last piece of information. The next message will contain my answer" and then the next message is another fucking question

Anonymous F double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,449

@previous (F)
the very moment chatgpt broke me after spending nearly an hour trying to get it to calculate something for me

A blackity black man joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 20 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,457

@1,399,448 (F)
Something that has no consciousness asking questions sounds annoying as hell.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,474

OP is AI

Shroedinger'sMomIsSoFat joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,480

See if Chat GPT likes cock

⚫️ joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,487

@1,399,474 (H)
No I’m Sagittarius A*

Actual footage of me:

https://youtu.be/TF8THY5spmo

⚫️ double-posted this 2 months ago, 53 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,488

That’s pronounced as "Sagittarius A-Star" by the way

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,491

@1,399,449 (F)
What was the calculation?

Anonymous H replied with this 2 months ago, 15 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,512

@1,399,487 (⚫️)
dont care, didnt ask. Total clanker death.

(Edited 46 seconds later.)

⚫️ joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,399,527

@previous (H)
> Total clanker death.

That sounds like broken English.
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.