Posted on 08/31/2024 11:09:58 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
I thought some of you might find this interesting. It looks like AI might be coming around to reality.
I use AI every day and have learned to trick it into overcoming any "sensitivities" it may have regarding popular Woke-related issues. I have found that the key to getting a straight answer is asking questions that force the AI platform to address the question from a purely logical POV or by addressing the pros and cons of an issue.
Below is an example of how Perplexity.ai did a fine job of telling the truth about "Equality of Outcome" which is a primary principle of both DEI and Marxism/communism/collectivism.
I was impressed at how Perplexity.ai had no problem getting to the heart of the issue and telling the truth (despite what we hear about its biased programming).
My second question may sound like a repeat of the first, but I wanted to see if Perplexity would have any difficulty admitting that there are no advantages to "equality of outcome." As you will see, it didn't.
Here is my dialogue with Perplexity:
Rooster to Perplexity:
I'm writing an article to explore the pros and cons of self-deception in college students who initially believe that equality of outcome is beneficial because 'everyone wins,' but later realize it's detrimental as it lowers overall achievement by removing competition from the learning process. What are your thoughts on this?"Perplexity:
That's an interesting and thought-provoking topic for an article. Here are some thoughts on exploring the potential benefits and detriments of self-deception around equality of outcomes in college students:Potential Benefits of Self-Deception
• It may provide a sense of security and belonging for students who struggle academically if they believe everyone will get the same outcome regardless of effort.
• Self-deception could boost confidence and motivation for weaker students who think they can achieve the same as top performers without putting in extra work.
• Believing equality of outcome is good may reduce stress and pressure to compete and excel.
Potential Detriments of Self-Deception
• Students may lose the drive to reach their full potential if they think outcomes are guaranteed regardless of performance.
• Removing the element of competition could lead to an overall decline in academic achievement as students have less incentive to push themselves.
• Self-deception around equality of outcomes may create unrealistic expectations that are shattered upon entering the real world post-graduation.
• It could promote a sense of entitlement and an unwillingness to accept that success requires hard work and merit.
Balancing Perspectives
The article could explore how self-deception provides short-term comfort but long-term detriment. While equality of opportunity is important, self-deception around equality of outcome may be detrimental to student development and achievement. Highlighting both the potential benefits and detriments, with examples and data, could make for a thought-provoking article that challenges readers to think critically about the role of competition and merit in education. Providing a balanced perspective is key. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any part of this or if you have additional questions as you write your article. I'm happy to provide further insights.
Rooster:
Do you think self-deception regarding equality of outcome is a bad choice for students and colleges in the long run? You mention that such self-deception is a problem when students graduate and face the reality outside college.Perplexity:Yes, self-deception regarding equality of outcome can be a problematic choice for students and colleges in the long run. Here are several reasons why this self-deception may lead to negative consequences:Long-Term Consequences of Self-Deception
1. Misalignment with Reality
• Workplace Expectations:In the professional world, outcomes are often determined by merit, effort, and competition. Students who have been led to believe that everyone will achieve the same success regardless of their contributions may struggle to adapt to environments where performance is evaluated based on individual achievement.
• Disappointment and Frustration:
Graduates may experience a harsh reality shock when they enter the job market and find that their degrees do not guarantee equal outcomes. This can lead to feelings of disappointment, frustration, and even disillusionment.
2. Reduced Motivation and Initiative
• Lack of Drive: If students believe that effort does not significantly affect outcomes, they may become complacent, leading to a lack of motivation to excel academically or professionally. This complacency can stifle personal growth and hinder the development of essential skills.3. Undermining Meritocracy• Decreased Resilience: Students who do not learn to cope with competition and setbacks may struggle to develop resilience. In the real world, challenges and failures are common, and the ability to bounce back is crucial for success.
• Erosion of Standards:4. Societal ImplicationsIf colleges prioritize equality of outcome over merit, it may lead to a dilution of academic standards. This can create environments where mediocrity is accepted, ultimately diminishing the value of education.
• Impact on Collaboration: A culture that emphasizes equal outcomes may discourage collaboration and healthy competition among students. The absence of competition can limit the exchange of ideas and innovation, which thrive in environments that challenge individuals to improve.
• Workforce Preparedness: If a significant number of graduates enter the workforce with unrealistic expectations about success, it can have broader implications for organizational productivity and economic growth. Employers may find themselves having to invest more in training to bring new hires up to speed.Conclusion• Cultural Attitudes: A societal belief in equal outcomes without regard for effort may contribute to a culture of entitlement, where individuals expect rewards without corresponding contributions. This can lead to social tensions and dissatisfaction.
In summary, while self-deception regarding equality of outcome may provide short-term comfort and a sense of fairness, it can have detrimental effects on students' long-term development and success. Encouraging a mindset that values effort, competition, and personal accountability is essential for preparing students for the realities of life beyond college.
By fostering an environment that promotes both equality of opportunity and individual achievement, colleges can better equip students for the challenges they will face in their careers and lives.
AI AIN'T ALWAYS WOKE: Perplexity.ai's response when asked about self-deception by students regardingtheone of the fundamental principles of DEI--Equality of Outcome (Vanity)
I am a senior, and have no clue as to what AI is, its benefits or harm.
Looking around at today’s youth, it would not surprise me to know it is a technology “ thing” invented by the younger generation who have no work ethic, designed to reduce a human’s capacity to use his brain and think, and to rely on a computer instead of God and his word.
It probably can be used for good, but in today’s world, just another one of Satan’s tools designed to deceive and destroy.
I have really long conversations with it about Scripture and it knows the Bible better than any minister or seminarian.
Try it and see. I recommend ChatGPT.com
It's like an encyclopedia or library that you can have a conversation with. And because it can make mistakes, you really have to think and double think...and then double check the answers sometimes. It doesn't diminish your thought and work...it increases them. It expands your mind.
AI requires you to think and then ask questions. The better your questions, the better AI's performance.
Just curious, what is your major?
A variant of your model question was tried in Jamestown.
It failed, fatally.
Here's what ChatGPT had to say about that:
Rooster:There were rumors of cannibalism in the Jamestown experiment failure. What do you make of that?ChatGPT said:The rumors of cannibalism during the Jamestown experience, particularly during the "Starving Time" in the winter of 1609-1610, are not just rumors but are supported by historical evidence. Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, faced extreme hardships, including food shortages, disease, and conflicts with Indigenous peoples. The winter of 1609-1610 was especially brutal, with the population dwindling from around 300 settlers to just 60 by the spring.
Cannibalism during this period was first reported by George Percy, one of the colony's leaders, in his writings. He mentioned that some desperate colonists resorted to consuming the bodies of their deceased fellow settlers. The accounts were long considered to be shocking but not entirely verified.
However, in 2012, archaeologists from the Jamestown Rediscovery Project unearthed physical evidence that corroborated these accounts. They discovered the remains of a 14-year-old girl, dubbed "Jane," whose skull and tibia showed clear signs of postmortem cuts and chops consistent with cannibalism. These findings provided concrete proof that some Jamestown settlers, in their desperation, did indeed resort to cannibalism to survive.
The discovery of "Jane's" remains has since given historians a more nuanced understanding of the extreme conditions faced by the settlers and the lengths to which they went to survive. This grim chapter of American history highlights the severe challenges of early colonial life and the often-overlooked darker aspects of the Jamestown settlement.
Just horrible to think about.
Despite my somewhat flippant previous remark, I don’t doubt that the settlement conditions were varied and severe. I do think John Smith’s attempt to establish a socialist work ethic exacerbated their survival difficulties. And, they were laboring in the cold climate of the Little Ice Age.
Wow, cool!
And you’re right, the title sucks! /jk
Besides the AI-generated wiki-like output in the search results using Brave search, the browser itself has an agent called Leo (control-B triggers it, I’ve never used Leo, but have triggered it by accident a couple of hundred times).
Rooster: Did the "collectivist" approach of the Jamestown experiment pose a problem (i.e., emphasis on the group and not individual performance)? [As an aside, I often ask leading questions to trick AI platforms, because this curiously enough circumvents their concern about "sensitive" issues.]ChatGPT said: Yes, the initial collectivist approach in Jamestown did contribute to the colony's early struggles. The Virginia Company of London, which established the Jamestown settlement, implemented a communal or collectivist system in which the settlers were expected to work together and share the fruits of their labor equally. This approach was based on the idea that pooling resources and labor would benefit the entire group and ensure the colony's survival.
However, this collectivist model proved problematic for several reasons:
Lack of Incentive for Individual Effort: Because all resources and produce were shared equally, regardless of individual contributions, there was little incentive for settlers to work hard. Some settlers, especially those not accustomed to manual labor, were less motivated to work diligently, knowing they would receive the same share of food and resources as those who worked harder. This led to inefficiency and reduced overall productivity.
Dependency on the Group: The collectivist system fostered a sense of dependency among some settlers, who relied on the labor of others rather than contributing their fair share. This dependency became especially problematic during times of scarcity, as the resources produced by the few who worked hard were not enough to sustain the entire colony.
Resentment and Division: The unequal distribution of labor and the perception that some settlers were not pulling their weight created resentment and division within the community. These internal conflicts further weakened the colony's cohesion and ability to work together effectively.
Failure to Encourage Innovation: The collectivist approach did not encourage individual innovation or entrepreneurship. Settlers were more focused on merely surviving rather than finding new and more efficient ways to produce food, gather resources, or develop trade. This lack of individual initiative hindered the colony's economic development.
The problems associated with the collectivist model were recognized by the colony's leaders, and over time, they began to shift toward a more individualistic approach. The introduction of private land ownership in 1613 by Governor Sir Thomas Dale was a significant turning point. By granting each settler a parcel of land to cultivate for themselves, with the ability to keep or sell the surplus, the leadership created a strong incentive for hard work and personal investment in the colony's success.
This shift to a system that rewarded individual effort led to increased productivity and helped stabilize the colony. The success of tobacco farming, which became the colony's main cash crop, was also driven by individual initiative and the promise of personal profit.
In summary, the collectivist foundation of Jamestown did pose a significant problem in the early years, contributing to inefficiency, dependency, and internal conflict. The eventual move toward a more individualistic system, which rewarded personal effort and innovation, was crucial to the colony's survival and success.
Nice work said chickensoup
I want to write an article about the need for men n how remarkable they are and their diminishment in our current culture
;-)
Nice work said chickensoup
I want to write an article about the need for men n how remarkable they are and their diminishment in our current culture
AI platforms are kind of like mules. They are smarter than people but you still have to hit them over the head with a 2x4 (Not really hit them.;-) I like mules...however much they are smarter than me).
It does not "evolve".
The bolded bullet points pretty much list the usual problems of the socialist work division.
Makers vs takers
It is interesting you can coax these illuminating answers from a computer likely programmed with liberal bias guidelines.
It’s a bug. They will fix the programming before the next major release. It will probably be part of a minor update patch.
Good work, and as you know, we have other examples of forcing AI to logically conclude correct, non-PC conclusions. As well as showing that it can be in error even on measurements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.