Topic: Minichan AI
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #132,545
Google autocomplete searched "where did minichan come from"
This was the AI response:
This was the AI response:
Minichan is a surname with roots in 19th-century Pennsylvania, often appearing in US census records from that era. It is generally considered a variation of names like Minchin (derived from Old English for "nun") or other similar surnames of British, Irish, or German origin.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later[^] [v] #1,414,897
You know all those kids on the internet trying to tell me AI is smart? You need to shut the fuck up now.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,898
Actually I just checked the autocomplete searched was "minichan meaning"
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,907
@1,414,897 (A)
> You know all those kids on the internet trying to tell me AI is smart? You need to shut the fuck up now.
It’s an advancement of autocomplete treated as “intelligent” and hyped as such to sell business models and investment rounds, to prompt usage, and to spur premature business adoption so they can keep up with the latest fad.
> You know all those kids on the internet trying to tell me AI is smart? You need to shut the fuck up now.
It’s an advancement of autocomplete treated as “intelligent” and hyped as such to sell business models and investment rounds, to prompt usage, and to spur premature business adoption so they can keep up with the latest fad.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,937
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,939
@previous (C)
> Which kids on the internet said that?
One on this website actually who also believes in biological determinism…
> Which kids on the internet said that?
One on this website actually who also believes in biological determinism…
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,940
If you do a search for "humanoid robots" you’ll probably find him saying something retarded about the west and China teaming up against Africa using humanoid robots because blacks are too low IQ to invent technology.
Which is stupid considering China has better relations with South Africa than they do with Europe or the United States. They literally sent warships to South Africa for war games with Russia and Iran two weeks ago while our president has been blabbering about white South Africans. Does Xi Jinping care about the human rights of white people in South Africa? He doesn’t even care about the human rights of his own people!
Which is stupid considering China has better relations with South Africa than they do with Europe or the United States. They literally sent warships to South Africa for war games with Russia and Iran two weeks ago while our president has been blabbering about white South Africans. Does Xi Jinping care about the human rights of white people in South Africa? He doesn’t even care about the human rights of his own people!
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous D triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,941
And I mean, I don’t like China. They’re authoritarians. But if you’ve ever come across Chinese propaganda on the internet, they can’t shut the fuck up about their economic thing with South Africa.
Anonymous D quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,942
Also genocide against white South Africans isn’t real.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,947
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,948
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,949
It’s amazing all I have to do is say retard and biological determinism and you know I’m talking about you. I never called you by name. Doth protest too much.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,951
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,953
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,955
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,956
@previous (E)
I know what you are but you don’t know what I am. I see how all of you operate. You all think you have friends. In your ideology, you believe in a promise for the white race. Your friends promise you a lot of nice things, but they never follow through. I never promise you anything nice, but I always deliver.
I know what you are but you don’t know what I am. I see how all of you operate. You all think you have friends. In your ideology, you believe in a promise for the white race. Your friends promise you a lot of nice things, but they never follow through. I never promise you anything nice, but I always deliver.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 31 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,960
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,993
@1,414,948 (D)
What is your argument again? That humans are too genetically similar to have any differences in intelligence?
You take it on faith that two genetically distinct populations couldn't have average differences in how their nervous system performs.
What is your argument again? That humans are too genetically similar to have any differences in intelligence?
You take it on faith that two genetically distinct populations couldn't have average differences in how their nervous system performs.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
boof joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,996
COCK
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 28 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,003
Ask ChatGPT what Minichan is.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,006
@1,414,993 (C)
It literally doesn’t matter what I say, you believe what you believe because you want to believe it and no amount of evidence will ever be satisfactory for you.
It literally doesn’t matter what I say, you believe what you believe because you want to believe it and no amount of evidence will ever be satisfactory for you.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,019
@1,414,993 (C)
> You take it on faith that two genetically distinct populations couldn't have average differences in how their nervous system performs.
How are you going to accuse someone of taking something on faith and then just assert something with zero evidence? Just because something could be true doesn’t mean it is. You always beg the question. You assume that black people have low IQs because you’re a nazi, and you look for reasons why your conclusion is true and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
> You take it on faith that two genetically distinct populations couldn't have average differences in how their nervous system performs.
How are you going to accuse someone of taking something on faith and then just assert something with zero evidence? Just because something could be true doesn’t mean it is. You always beg the question. You assume that black people have low IQs because you’re a nazi, and you look for reasons why your conclusion is true and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,033
@previous (I)
I gave a source for IQ and you just dismissed it and said you didn't care if you could find a source for family income.
I gave a source for IQ and you just dismissed it and said you didn't care if you could find a source for family income.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,054
@previous (C)
After I’d already shown you a source for family income and you started asking questions about the source so I gave you a link for you to look into it yourself.
You’re just a radicalized white supremacists who keeps begging the question. It’s like trying to convince somebody in ISIS that Muhammad isn’t a prophet.
After I’d already shown you a source for family income and you started asking questions about the source so I gave you a link for you to look into it yourself.
You’re just a radicalized white supremacists who keeps begging the question. It’s like trying to convince somebody in ISIS that Muhammad isn’t a prophet.
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,055
And to be fair, you didn’t link to the source, you didn’t give me a source, you just said that a particular study showed that IQ is strongly correlated with income. I googled it, what I found is the study actually didn’t actually say that, but Douglass Murray wrote a book that claimed it did. If you look into Douglass Murray’s political views, it’s pretty clear that he’s not unbiased.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,084
@1,415,054 (J)
No, you gave a PDF article that didn't have the basic staples of a scientific study like sample size and methodology.
When I pointed that out you said you didn't care and would keep believing it because it made sense to you.
No, you gave a PDF article that didn't have the basic staples of a scientific study like sample size and methodology.
When I pointed that out you said you didn't care and would keep believing it because it made sense to you.
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,086
@1,415,055 (J)
I would have linked the source, but you said you found it on your own after I clarified which cohort I was referring to.
And no, Douglas Murray didn't lead the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
You already admitted the study I cited showed more correlation between IQ and outcomes than family income. Trying to backtrack on that now?
If you are going to actually approach this like a social scientist, find a study that backs up what you said. Not an article, an actual study that follows the standards all scientists use.
If you can't, you aren't basing your beliefs on science.
I would have linked the source, but you said you found it on your own after I clarified which cohort I was referring to.
And no, Douglas Murray didn't lead the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
You already admitted the study I cited showed more correlation between IQ and outcomes than family income. Trying to backtrack on that now?
If you are going to actually approach this like a social scientist, find a study that backs up what you said. Not an article, an actual study that follows the standards all scientists use.
If you can't, you aren't basing your beliefs on science.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,264
AI? It’s more like an austistic kid copying others.Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,299
@previous (K)
Being scientifically minded means copying the conclusions from peer reviewed publications, not inventing your own meaning.
Being scientifically minded means copying the conclusions from peer reviewed publications, not inventing your own meaning.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,476
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,477
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,478
(In the original meaning of the word.)
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,622
@1,415,477 (The Africa)
@previous (The Africa)
Neitzche was talking about morals, not empirical evidence.
@previous (The Africa)
Neitzche was talking about morals, not empirical evidence.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,723
@1,415,477 (The Africa)
People think Terminator when it comes to AI but this is AI now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiwADS600Jc
ChatGPT, Gemini et al use COPYRIGHTED INFO without payment? A person would get sued doing that.
People think Terminator when it comes to AI but this is AI now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiwADS600Jc
ChatGPT, Gemini et al use COPYRIGHTED INFO without payment? A person would get sued doing that.
The Africa joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,724
@previous (L)
Well, a person with a net worth less than a hundred million dollars would. Anyone with a hundred million dollars or more losing a legal case is a black swan event.
Fun fact: there are black swans in Australia.
Well, a person with a net worth less than a hundred million dollars would. Anyone with a hundred million dollars or more losing a legal case is a black swan event.
Fun fact: there are black swans in Australia.
The Africa double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,725
@1,415,299 (C)
> Being scientifically minded means copying the conclusions
Critical thinking is important. Blindly accepting things as true just because it comes from a source you think is credible is not critical thinking and not what scientists do.
> Being scientifically minded means copying the conclusions
Critical thinking is important. Blindly accepting things as true just because it comes from a source you think is credible is not critical thinking and not what scientists do.
The Africa triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,727
For example, before Einstein’s theory of relativity, you could have experimentally verified Newtonian physics with everyday objects traveling at non-relativistic velocities and found the theory works perfectly fine. Just because something is peer reviewed and just because you can verify something experimentally doesn’t mean it’s actually "true" in the sense that it’s an accurate description of how reality always works. You can question a peer reviewed scientific paper as long as you actually know what you’re talking about and have actually thought about it and aren’t doing whatever this idiot is doing.
https://youtu.be/KypnjJSKi4o?t=33m13s
Given how stupid your takes are, I would think that’s what you’re doing, but if you actually talked to ChatGPT about your race science ideas, it would tell you you’re wrong. So I don’t know what you’re doing, if your picking your nose and reading the hairs on the boogers or something.
https://youtu.be/KypnjJSKi4o?t=33m13s
Given how stupid your takes are, I would think that’s what you’re doing, but if you actually talked to ChatGPT about your race science ideas, it would tell you you’re wrong. So I don’t know what you’re doing, if your picking your nose and reading the hairs on the boogers or something.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,415,764
@1,415,725 (The Africa)
Scientists draw conclusions from the evidence, they dont make up their own theories and declare they'll believe it whether they have evidence or not.
Scientists draw conclusions from the evidence, they dont make up their own theories and declare they'll believe it whether they have evidence or not.