Of course you wouldn't say that, but what matters isn't where you claim you're aiming, it's what you're doing: parroting MAGA crazed conspiracy theories.

"Argument from ChatGPT" is much worse than Argument from Authority. If you can't come up with your own arguments, then don't quote ChatGPT's arguments to me, just admit you're out of arguments.

Oh no, by shutting down and not listening to MAGA conspiracy theory parrots like you, I'm giving them power, because then they'll point fingers and lie, you threaten??!

Well they'll certainly point fingers and lie even if I listen to them too, so be it.

Hmm, now where have I heard that "I don't believe what I'm saying, I'm just askin' questions" line before, again and again?

Tucker “Just Asking Questions” Carlson Wants to Know What Putin Ever Did to You

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/tucker-just-asking-q...

Fox News is 'Just Asking Questions' About the Safety of Vaccines

https://gizmodo.com/fox-news-is-just-asking-questions-about-...

Seth Meyers Nails Tucker Carlson’s ‘Just Asking Questions’ Nonsense

https://www.thedailybeast.com/seth-meyers-nails-tucker-carls...

> Of course you wouldn't say that, but what matters is what you're doing, not were you claim you're aiming.

How is me trying to discuss what somewhere between 0 and 50% of registered American voters believes in regards to "crypto fraud versus Wall Street fraud versus the stock market has been running on 0% interest rate money is basically fake fraud" whatever it is you're accusing me of doing?

I'm surprised somebody who has been on this site since 2014 with 20,000 karma is this rude/accusatory.

I and your other down voters are shutting down conversations about MAGA conspiracy theories, because this is not the place for them.

It's also not an appropriate place to post ChatGPT output instead of writing your own arguments.

Is it ChatGPT who told you to point fingers and play the victim of oppression if somebody tries to shut you down for spreading MAGA conspiracy theories, or did you come up with that yourself?

The point is that when you are spreading their conspiracy theories and telling people to let them speak and not silence them or else, that makes YOU one of those MAGA people you're warning us about. Witting or unwitting, you're useful to them.

I’m sorry but if he didn’t include that last paragraph this would have led to an interesting discussion because what he wrote is true. I disagree with the summary he’s made from that, or perhaps I disagree with the weight he’s giving to US default risk being close to that of crypto, but he’s hardly spouting some MAGA conspiracy like QAnon.

He literally admitted he hears what he's parroting from MAGA crazed conspiracy theorist weirdos, and while he claims not to believe them, he still spreads their conspiracy theories anyway, and on top of that tells people not to shut them down or else they will point fingers and play the victim. So what? Let them. They won't suddenly act reasonable and tell truth if we don't shut them down.

"i read a lot of this (pretty much MAGA crazed conspiracy theorist weirdos)"

Take it the other way, “I’ve read X by conspiracy group Y. I think I believe it but I want to ask others first as I think they’re crazy weirdos.”

We’re not bulls, we don’t have to charge when we see red (hats).

When Tucker Carlson says "I'm just asking", he's not just asking questions, he's spreading misinformation on purpose.

And again I repeat, since you seem to be ignoring it: he tried to quote ChatGPT to support his lack of a valid argument. Nobody comes to this site to have arguments with ChatGPT, and ChatGPT and language models were certainly not the topic of this conversation. He might as well have been quoting his cat walking across the keyboard.

He was unsuccessfully trying to use ChatGPT output to prove his point. If he had a valid argument that he thought of himself to support his point, then he would have posted it instead of first parroting crazy MAGA conspiracy theory weirdos (which makes him their tool, witting or not), then parroting ChatGPT (which makes him a fool).

Even if he frames himself as merely a self-appointed ambassador to HN for crazy liars, he's still spreading their crazy lies. And if he trusts everything ChatGPT says so much, then he can PRIVATELY ask it "I’ve read X by conspiracy group Y. I think I believe it but I want to ask others first as I think they’re crazy weirdos." instead of trying to spread those crazy lies and conspiracy theories here.

Hacker News is not an appropriate forum for parroting crazy MAGA conspiracy theories or ChatGPT drivel as fact, or whining about how you're the victim of oppression and censorship for being downvoted and shut down when you're clearly breaking the rules.

And his threat not to shut him down or else he'll point fingers and claim to be the victim of censorship doesn't matter if crazy liars will spread crazy lies in retaliation for being shut down, because they spread crazy lies no matter what you do, so his threat that we should not shut him down for spreading crazy lies because it will make crazy liars spread crazy lies is tautological and meaningless.

> Tucker “Just Asking Questions” Carlson Wants to Know What Putin Ever Did to You

In the interest of geopolitical curiosity and fairness, what exactly did Putin do to you?

ChatGPT's answers on questions like this aren't going to be usefully correct: they're merely going to repeat at best a synthesis/summary of what people have said on the topic in extant writings. But this is a question about trust and morals, which cannot be decided merely by consensus; any meaningful answer to it must be rooted in an actual value system and an understanding of trust.

> ChatGPT's answers on questions like this aren't going to be usefully correct: they're merely going to repeat at best a synthesis/summary of what people have said

It might repeat what some people have said. ChatGPT isn't designed to determine a consensus or to use a representative sample.

Fair. My point was largely that it doesn't "know" or "understand" anything itself, in order to draw conclusions; it merely has a whole lot of text in it and a model that allows it to associate that text very convincingly to look like it knows stuff. Thus, any answer it gives on a question like this will not be based on a comprehensive analysis of data, but rather on what the model predicts people would most likely say about the subject.

I think it's a good point, and I hate to nitpick, but a precise understanding of ChatGPT and related tech is critical.

> the model predicts people would most likely say about the subject

Is that truly the design and the output? What "people"? Is "most likely" the goal or output? Is it structured by subject?

Maybe you know, but many people are leaping to conclusions.

> Asked ChatGPT

Are you using ChatGPT as a source of truth? If so, what do you think about the obvious accuracy issues?