ragebutt

I’m sure they initially just did a ctrl+f for “lgbt” then someone on truth social who’s totally not obsessed with checking on gay and trans stuff all the time boosted a post about how it still had a reference to ‼️‼️🚨🚨gay shit🚨🚨‼️‼️

“The goal for OpenAI is not to create hyper-persuasive AI models but instead to ensure AI models don’t get too persuasive.”

Fingers crossed, trust us bro

How do you deal with flawed papers?? Especially on this scale. Like as a social issue

I highly suggest reading the second half of the article at a minimum. Morris destroys this bullshit paper. But Morris is the director of biostatistics at UPenn. You can’t expect the average person to hold articles to the same rigor that he will. But for better or for worse the articles are available to all.

Like as a person who is educated on statistics and research methodology it is generally easy to find flaws in a deeply flawed paper like this (although some things, like the authors having a history of retracted papers, the journal not being listed in pubmed or medline, the journals mailing address being just some guys house, the journals board of directors all being antivax nuts, etc), take effort and research.

But the laymen can’t necessarily see this. Of course that’s why they bother to go to these lengths. To create an “alternative” (read: fake) journal. Because an article like this (hopefully) wouldn’t pass the review process in a legitimate journal. But a laymen doesn’t know that. They don’t know the difference between nature, Wiley, and whatever the fuck their kooky shit is called. The pdfs all look the same. It legitimizes their nonsense

In a time where people just read abstracts (or really just headlines) and call themselves experts, how do you combat this? I don’t know. This paper was shockingly easy to tear apart and here it is, in a congressional hearing, being presented as a potential valid source. Some of our congresspeople brought good papers to counter but even they didn’t seem to know how to tear this paper apart when it had such basic flaws. But all Kennedy had to do was not cite the Wakefield study and find one of the many kooky papers that have been written in its wake (lol) which they didn’t prep for.

This should’ve been a shutdown where he referenced that paper, they looked it over, and immediately fucking destroyed it. I was unfamiliar with that paper and found several issues on my first read like confounding variables mentioned in the article. This is a pretty big one but not as huge as the major one Morris mentions, which is the potential for vaccinations to have occurred outside of network, making their data and proposed outcome garbage!

It’s funny because when you work in a medical field you’re taught explicitly to stay in your lane. Ethical codes generally tell you to do this too. Not everyone does this obviously. But when someone is outside of this system, like rfk, they can do whatever the fuck they want. Like if an MD was sitting for this right now people could appeal to the AMA to pull their license. But RFK has no such authority over him. He can say whatever and do whatever. Libs love that of course but it means that he can push very harmful narratives with no evidence

Dark times. I genuinely don’t know how to handle something like this

And a reminder while anti vaccination goes wayyy back (it actually predates vaccines, oddly) the autism vaccine link is primarily due to the “Wakefield study” from 1998 linking the mmr vaccine to autism. This was (eventually, took forever) retracted because Wakefield both falsified data and had a vested financial interest in test kits (he stood to gain $43 million per year). He also had his medical license revoked. He has since shed all of that though and decided to ride the anti vaccination wave, which is quite lucrative. He has done podcasts, documentaries, “political activism”, and was hobnobbing with celebrities back when anti vaccination crunchiness was a weird lefty thing (he was even married to Elle McPherson for a few years). Like many sociopaths a grifter who does not give a shit about killing hundreds of thousands for financial gain and will likely happily adopt right wing politics (maybe he already has) once he realizes how easy that crowd is in terms of extracting money

Also a reminder that a study retraction is very uncommon, generally only done when fraud, errors, or misconduct are discovered

I remember when I was a teenager working in restaurants during high school I’d come home and shower afterwards. when I’d wash my hair it’d reek of cigarette smoke because I’d spent the last 5-9 hours standing in a giant plume of it.

I picked up smoking in college, I wonder if that was a factor. Thankfully I quit, eventually

It was wonderful. I got dental care while I was there and it was incredibly affordable and expertly done. Best healthcare system in Latin America and one of the better ones in the world.

Some photos while driving. One of the downsides is driving in Costa Rica is an intense experience that I would not recommend. We got a deal where a car rental was only 50 cents a day if we added it onto our flight so it was like why not! They only had manual which was fine, I can drive that, but keep in mind because it also meant I had to do 100% of the driving as my partner is like most Americans and has no idea how to drive a manual. But when we picked it up the clerk was like “have you ever driven in Latin America before?” when I replied no he looked a little alarmed. It was challenging

There was a sloth, these were actually really hard to find. Hide and seek champions, way up in the trees and blend in well.

Monkeys however, were all over the damn place. They would unzip your backpack and steal your shit if you didn’t pay attention, apparently. We were also warned to not leave bags outside because raccoons would apparently also do this

See that looks green to me so I’d totally just die

This is true but he would do something like this, force everyone to be unhappy, and just eat the now illegal food. He would do it blatantly. He would take photo ops signing executive orders with matchbox cars and McDonald’s cups on his desk and then blame a staffer for leaving them there when everyone, including his die hards, would 100% know that moments before they shoved that placard into his hand he was chugging Diet Coke and making that car do sweet jumps. But then the die hards, knowing he was full of shit, would push the narrative that someone else did it, and twist it (deepfakes, never happened, etc) until they started to believe it themselves.

Then the media would call it some stupid shit like sodagate and snopes would have an article like did Donald trump actually drink soda and play with toys? They’d post the picture the body would be like “while many believe trump did drink the soda based on his historical love of the drink, the official narrative is that it belonged to a member of staff who has not been named. Additionally there have been several debunked theories about the photo being doctored or the situation being a fabriction.” With no definitive ruling on whether he did or not because they often don’t seem to do that anymore to seem “impartial”

At this point though he would have already done something else ridiculous and horrible so everyone would’ve moved on. “Who cares about mcdonalds and toys?” you say. “Did you not just hear he literally banned people from thinking about the concept of trans people and imposed a 40% tariff on anything blue?”

Mihon is still available although it doesn’t do anime, only manga

I would go through LinkedIn and pick a person at random, use their name with the exact same spelling and any alphabet soup they have behind their name

Jerry Thompson, Esq Mary Kowalski, F.A.C.S. Dr. Alan Carter, DDS, FACP

These are all fake btw. I mean they may not be but if they are it’s genuinely a coincidence. That would be so weird

why

oh my god how could I forget the thick base layer of sour cream, spread around the entirety of the tortilla so that literally every bite has a huge dollop of

It says “Im sorry but that’s beyond my current scope” and asks to change the topic and people make 8,000,000 memes about censorship

Meanwhile chatgpt is much more subversive with things like suggesting Israel has an inherent right to freedom and Palestinian freedom is a “complex topic”, only changing the model after this blows up on twitter, and no one really gives a shit.

Here’s a fun answer from chatgpt about OpenAI’s business ethics

Prompt: if a product is brought to market with little regulation and overview does a company such as OpenAI have a right to keep a product such as chatgpt proprietary considering the potential harm?

2. Risks of Keeping AI Proprietary

Lack of Transparency: If an AI system significantly influences public discourse, elections, or safety-critical decisions, keeping it proprietary can make accountability difficult.

Limited External Scrutiny: Without independent review, it’s harder to assess whether the system is biased, unsafe, or being misused. Potential for Abuse: Proprietary control means the company alone dictates who can use AI and how, raising concerns about corporate overreach.

“3. Risks of Making AI Fully Open-Source Misuse by Bad Actors: A fully open-source ChatGPT could be exploited for disinformation campaigns, fraud, or even cyberattacks.

Loss of Safety Mechanisms: OpenAI currently moderates ChatGPT to prevent harm (e.g., blocking certain types of malicious content). If fully open, these protections could be stripped away.

Commercial Viability: If everything were open-source, companies might lack incentives to develop and maintain such powerful AI systems.

Conclusion: Should OpenAI Be More Transparent? Yes—if ChatGPT has serious risks, greater oversight and external review should exist. But a fully open-source AI could introduce new dangers, so careful regulation rather than total disclosure may be the most ethical approach.

Would you like to discuss AI regulation models that balance innovation and safety?”

So here we are trading (fairly blatant) censorship for (more subtle) propaganda. Transparency and open standards are bad! Put your trust into OpenAI! We will take care of the bad guys and make sure you don’t see nasty stuff. How do you know that’s the case? Just trust us bro!

Though to their credit they at least present the idea that proprietary models can be harmful, although the conclusion at the end is that this is not the case. To be clear I left out point 1 (it shows point 2 as point 1, I’m fucking up the markdown somehow) for length but this was just preamble.

At least deepseek releases their model. Not to mention the significant impact on the environment that their much more economical model has. or the tremendous impact on privacy that is obtained by being able to run the model locally (though to be fair at this point this is a privilege for those with at least a decent gpu).