DC ChatGPT Q&A
- Thread starter RA5
- Start date
The Earth meets the Sky beyond the hill, a sparrow once told me with a bump on its head.Bunch of short stories in Irvin Welsh's bizarre style - so an easy read
(From memory, apologies if it isn't an exact quote.)
Ivor Cutler
‘A Flat Man’ by Ivor Cutler (1977 Club) | Intermittencies of the Mind ‘A Flat Man’ by Ivor Cutler (1977 Club)
Every single time I spot AI on YouTube i block the channel and if the comments are anything to go bye most people do the same .. im sure it's different for scify stuff but I haven't watched scify since my wife made me see return of the jedi ... my brain isn't made for make believe I spend the whole time thinking of how this isn't possible/ridiculous I have zero imagination
Return of the Jedi wasn't SF, it was slop.Every single time I spot AI on YouTube i block the channel and if the comments are anything to go bye most people do the same .. im sure it's different for scify stuff but I haven't watched scify since my wife made me see return of the jedi ... my brain isn't made for make believe I spend the whole time thinking of how this isn't possible/ridiculous I have zero imagination
Actual SF is cool and thought-provoking and you've probably never been exposed to it (it's really, really rare, especially in films).
Most "SF" is human drama dropped into a science or pseudo-science scenario. Most Star Treks fell into this category - Klingons are basically Afghan tribesmen.. Star Wars is very much of this ilk.Wife watches every breed of the shite ..... yes shite ... my record for the matrix is 11 mins and that's out of my bin and I still thought it was utter scutter
There are few examples of SF where the story could not be reframed with minimal effort into a non-SF setup. I believe films like Moon [2009] fall into this category... whereas Avatar is simply Dances with Wolves where the injuns are blue.
I ought to set myself a task of coming up with a list of real SF films, if I CBA. Unfortunately, most real SF has never made the move from the printed page to the screen and is therefore very rare.
However, The Matrix, whilst being mostly an adventure/thriller/action film, is arguably also a SF movie. Which means that there's a chance that you genuinely don't like the SF genre and are therefore some kind of Guinness
I reckon all of the above is trueMost "SF" is human drama dropped into a science or pseudo-science scenario. Most Star Treks fell into this category - Klingons are basically Afghan tribesmen.. Star Wars is very much of this ilk.
There are few examples of SF where the story could not be reframed with minimal effort into a non-SF setup. I believe films like Moon [2009] fall into this category... whereas Avatar is simply Dances with Wolves where the injuns are blue.
I ought to set myself a task of coming up with a list of real SF films, if I CBA. Unfortunately, most real SF has never made the move from the printed page to the screen and is therefore very rare.
However, The Matrix, whilst being mostly an adventure/thriller/action film, is arguably also a SF movie. Which means that there's a chance that you genuinely don't like the SF genre and are therefore some kind of Guinness
Ai still sucks, til it doesn't. From all the videos I watched on the subject, this is how it will happen one days it sucks then next day it'll be capable of doing everything we need it to and more. The speed of it's growth is crazy.
I continue to find myself irritated by it's limitations. This morning while researching a motorcycle accident near here the best it could do was bring up a story a year old. I hand fed it all the info before it found it.
At work, they're pushing us to use it and I do with some success. I may post some of that here for feedback.
As far as sci-fy, I'm a fan. Good points @Loz
I continue to find myself irritated by it's limitations. This morning while researching a motorcycle accident near here the best it could do was bring up a story a year old. I hand fed it all the info before it found it.
At work, they're pushing us to use it and I do with some success. I may post some of that here for feedback.
As far as sci-fy, I'm a fan. Good points @Loz
I am surprised, despite all the sci-fy movies, no one is talking about or implementing Asimov's 3 basic laws of robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
There are some being discussed and are barely similar but the laws above are simple and sensical imo eventhough they come from ficton.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
There are some being discussed and are barely similar but the laws above are simple and sensical imo eventhough they come from ficton.
If the rumours are true...he's a lot worse than that
Not my questions but interesting 
Did it have an opinion on England
Tell that to David Baddiel and the lightning seedsIt did it said
Been there, done that, no point in doing it again
they must be due a 30 year re-release 
I've come to use Gemini daily, mostly for development. It's ok. This week, I've instructed it to stop going down rabbit holes to find solutions that never work as it is far from efficient and a waste if time. Interactions have improved and responses are more targeted and contolled.
I've argued with Leo because for some reason our chats get deleted and the answers changed. The worst of the ones I use regularly, but it is good for quick queries about general dumb shit, and the default for Brave browser.
Co-pilot (ChatGPT), is the middle of the road AI which I've tailored to work similarly to Gemini. After a recent update, I swear it's gotten a bit smarter (depending on topic) and the chats feel more natural.
Grok I seldom use but it is the best for "unbiased" discussion and content creation. This is Lady K's go to and she is leagues ahead of me on what she can do with it.
Haven't messed with Claude yet nor Open-AI.
Do not have AI enabled on any of my devices though manufacturers are adding it to everything.
Adobe's Firefly is Ok but getting better, I don't care for the token credit systems required for making anything decent and I am a cheap old bastard so that may have something to do with it.
One day I hope bias with AI response will be a thing if the past, truly objective responses would be nice but that's a people problem and AI remains a people managed product. It remains incapable of anything remotely close to thought. Still mostly a search engine that replies in a conversational format.
I've argued with Leo because for some reason our chats get deleted and the answers changed. The worst of the ones I use regularly, but it is good for quick queries about general dumb shit, and the default for Brave browser.
Co-pilot (ChatGPT), is the middle of the road AI which I've tailored to work similarly to Gemini. After a recent update, I swear it's gotten a bit smarter (depending on topic) and the chats feel more natural.
Grok I seldom use but it is the best for "unbiased" discussion and content creation. This is Lady K's go to and she is leagues ahead of me on what she can do with it.
Haven't messed with Claude yet nor Open-AI.
Do not have AI enabled on any of my devices though manufacturers are adding it to everything.
Adobe's Firefly is Ok but getting better, I don't care for the token credit systems required for making anything decent and I am a cheap old bastard so that may have something to do with it.
One day I hope bias with AI response will be a thing if the past, truly objective responses would be nice but that's a people problem and AI remains a people managed product. It remains incapable of anything remotely close to thought. Still mostly a search engine that replies in a conversational format.
It's all crazy. You never know, we may be closer that actually happening than we realize.At this stage pal I'm actually praying for model 101 to arrive from the future and terminate all of this madness..
Let me know when the technology from ‘Weird Science’ becomes available.All the out there crazy movie shit of my youth seems to be slowly coming thru
This from a chat related to all the cameras they are installing everywhere.
Is there an ongoing effort to remove drivers from roads?
Finished
There is no active, large-scale effort to forcibly remove human drivers from roads, but there are ongoing technological, legislative, and commercial efforts to transition toward autonomous vehicles (AVs) that could eventually reduce or restrict human-driven vehicles in certain areas.
Key points:
https://medium.com/@jonathan_blake/humans-will-be-banned-from-driving-by-2080-fa5be5973a12
Will human drivers be banned in the future?
What about basic freedom of movement. Surely this condradicts basic rights?
Finished
The right to travel is a fundamental constitutional right under U.S. law, protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause and interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like Saenz v. Roe (1999). It guarantees the freedom to move between states and within the country.
However, driving is not a constitutional right—it is a regulated privilege. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that operating a motor vehicle is not protected as an unrestricted liberty. States may require licenses, impose traffic laws, and regulate vehicle operation to ensure public safety, as affirmed in Hendrick v. Maryland (1915).
Efforts to adopt autonomous vehicles do not eliminate the right to travel—they may change how people move, but no current policy removes human drivers from roads or infringes on the basic right to mobility. Restrictions on driving (e.g., licensing, DUI laws) are long-standing and apply equally to all, regardless of automation trends.
Apparently they snuck in "Driving as a privilege" in the 1920's under the guise of public safety.
Is there an ongoing effort to remove drivers from roads?
Finished
There is no active, large-scale effort to forcibly remove human drivers from roads, but there are ongoing technological, legislative, and commercial efforts to transition toward autonomous vehicles (AVs) that could eventually reduce or restrict human-driven vehicles in certain areas.
Key points:
- Autonomous vehicle testing is expanding in cities like Phoenix, San Francisco, and Nashville via companies such as Waymo, Cruise, and Tesla.
- No U.S. state bans human drivers on public roads, but some states (e.g., Tennessee) prohibit local governments from regulating or banning AVs, enabling their deployment without local approval.
- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Department of Transportation are developing safety frameworks for AVs, but no national mandate exists to replace human drivers.
- Experts predict gradual restrictions, starting with dense urban centers, where safety and congestion concerns may lead to limited access for human-driven vehicles—similar to low-emission zones in Europe.
- Full replacement is decades away, with Level 5 autonomy (fully driverless under all conditions) considered unlikely before 2035.
https://medium.com/@jonathan_blake/humans-will-be-banned-from-driving-by-2080-fa5be5973a12
Will human drivers be banned in the future?
What about basic freedom of movement. Surely this condradicts basic rights?
Finished
The right to travel is a fundamental constitutional right under U.S. law, protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause and interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like Saenz v. Roe (1999). It guarantees the freedom to move between states and within the country.
However, driving is not a constitutional right—it is a regulated privilege. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that operating a motor vehicle is not protected as an unrestricted liberty. States may require licenses, impose traffic laws, and regulate vehicle operation to ensure public safety, as affirmed in Hendrick v. Maryland (1915).
Efforts to adopt autonomous vehicles do not eliminate the right to travel—they may change how people move, but no current policy removes human drivers from roads or infringes on the basic right to mobility. Restrictions on driving (e.g., licensing, DUI laws) are long-standing and apply equally to all, regardless of automation trends.
Apparently they snuck in "Driving as a privilege" in the 1920's under the guise of public safety.
We had an application not far from my home, for a 65ft 5G mast by Hutchinson, they are the engineering firm for the work on behalf of the 3 network. Two of the points made by the objectors "the customer wants 5G for downloads" was a fraudulent one as when most people get home, they set their mobiles to automatically connect to the persome home internet modem which does the job just fine and the true reason was to set up a fast network for the future of driverless cars.
The council agreed so refused it and the county council refused it but the company appealed and the Planning inspectorate approved the application.
One of the premises of the application was 3 said their was a lack of 5G in our area but two things came from that. There was a lack of 5G for the 3 network but multiple other networks had perfectly fine 5G. The other thing was, 3 forgot to mention that they had just merged with Vodafone who had a perfectly fine 5G coverage for the area that 3 said they had not.
From all of that, for me it became quite clear that this was never about "for the people" but for the long term use of business with a long term view to remove individuals from cars as another form of control.
The council agreed so refused it and the county council refused it but the company appealed and the Planning inspectorate approved the application.
One of the premises of the application was 3 said their was a lack of 5G in our area but two things came from that. There was a lack of 5G for the 3 network but multiple other networks had perfectly fine 5G. The other thing was, 3 forgot to mention that they had just merged with Vodafone who had a perfectly fine 5G coverage for the area that 3 said they had not.
From all of that, for me it became quite clear that this was never about "for the people" but for the long term use of business with a long term view to remove individuals from cars as another form of control.
I think suggesting that gubmint is recklessly encouraging "cheap solutions" is just about as naïve and hopelessly optimistic as it's possible to be.
Any interpretation of government's actions and activities that fails to acknowledge the genuinely murderous if not genocidal intent behind them, at this point, is doing far more harm than good.
How much more evidence is required that government wants vast swathes of us to die? I am honestly curious what it would take now.
Last edited:
I haven't taken a lot of interest in this Chat GPT thingy but having watched this I don't like it one little bit.
Yes, I understand how useful it could be but the negative sides are massive. We've done without it for thousands of years.....
Yes, I understand how useful it could be but the negative sides are massive. We've done without it for thousands of years.....