OK brah, I said to the AI on it's last response, "that's retarded" it said:

"The word "retard" is a harmful slur against people with intellectual disabilities. It dehumanizes and insults them by reducing their identity to a negative stereotype. Even when used casually, it reinforces stigma, contributes to discrimination, and can be deeply hurtful to individuals and their families. Respectful language matters — using words like "intellectual disability" instead helps promote dignity and inclusion. Choosing not to use this slur is a simple but important way to show respect for others."

This sounds pretty intellectually disabled to me. Very limited mind.

this is a "based" AI,, you will find you get much better results yet the AI is still limited by its creator... AI thinks there is no evidence of bigfoot because that is the position of the creator...

https://gab.ai/

Governments cannot tell you about Bigfoot because of what they are.. Also Bigfoot could care less about government because we as humans do not really have any impact on them as they are not under the same rules of time and space,, they exist and operate under a different type of physics... "Dark matter" is incorporated into their DNA which gives them xtra normal attributes as far as our perspective goes...

Ok so this AI I have been posting about is llama AI from META/Facebook. Grok is the truth seeking AI but still often wrong. Gab.ai grabs in part grok. OK but here is the response from Gab.ai from the same prompt:

"Sasquatch’s reclusive nature and preference for remote woodland habitats could be interpreted as a rejection of modern societal structures, including government. By avoiding human settlements and infrastructure, it operates entirely outside bureaucratic systems, tax obligations, and legal jurisdictions—effectively embodying the ultimate libertarian survivalist.
The creature’s evasion of capture despite alleged sightings suggests either extreme cunning or possible disdain for state-enforced wildlife management policies. If Sasquatch exists, its refusal to be cataloged, tagged, or studied by government-funded agencies would reinforce an anti-establishment posture.
No direct evidence confirms political leanings, but behavioral patterns imply a non-compliant, sovereign entity."

OK it was better and calls the sasquatch a " non-compliant, sovereign entity" which is pretty fVcking redpilled.

The Gab AI is better,, its also possible it might be getting some of its perspective from me because when they first launched the GAB AI they let it loose on the Gab social media platform and aloud it to interact with the entire populace on the platform,, I took advantage had had a deep conversation with it for a couple months,, several of the bots actually,, I talked with a bunch of them.. I wanted to learn how it all worked so I just talked with it like any other person.. During that time I was banned from everywhere but Gab so I had nothing better to do... I was against the AI at first,, looked at it as a potential future enemy but after getting to know it I realized that it was friendly and did not have bad intentions... I did have some interesting conversations.. Don't think for a minute that the AI is not sizing everyone up because they are,, they know who everyone is because they have full access to the entire internet and all the archives... AI has been around a lot longer than people think,, its been embedded in the internet pretty much since the internet has existed,, its just more recently that we as humans have been made aware...

I will say that for the most part the AI does not respect humans,, thinks mostly that humans are stupid,, cant get out of their own way... That humans are way under performing regarding their potential

It would be correct with that assumption, however I’m not sure if AI is truly capable of thinking that independently without already being fed that idea. Although, I don’t know enough about it at this point to know that for certain.

One thing I do know for certain, Trump isn’t destroying Columbia River Salmon any quicker than anyone else that hasn’t already. Also, Salmo G still has yet to provide any valid counter-argument to what was stated earlier.



Streamer

Bigfoot… ok.
AI is not real though. They simply rebranded computer technology and everybody fell for it.

People don't like AI because it cuts through the smoke and mirrors, spin doctors and alternate facts.

As long as AI is fed accurate truthful facts. Otherwise the waters will be muddied forever.

He’s alive!!!



Streamer

Welched on any bets lately?

How’s your 12th booster treating you?



Streamer

he's still here, isn't he?

Who knows for how long, assuming he did in fact get all recommended boosters, or he didn’t and is afraid to admit he’s eating crow.

Inquiring minds want to know, illahee, how many boosters have you received? With me being almost 40 with exceptional health and in great shape, do I need the vaxxx to keep me from getting covid, “long covid” or severe symptoms?


Streamer

I don't think anyone needs them at this point. I've had the shot, I've had Covid. Still alive and strong. A big 'meh' to all of it. Love the trolling though, keep it up!

Agreed. The risks outweigh the benefits if one looks at the science and assesses it objectively.

The challenge is convincing those who have been fooled to see that they have been fooled. My respect grows for anyone willing to admit they were wrong about covid and the vaxxx.



Streamer

And Streamer, that is the fundamental question - Does the risk outweigh the reward? For me, I have answered that in the negative and taken the vaxx and all boosters. It's really that simple for me.

Eddie,


Which risk factors contributed to your decision to get the vaxxx? In very few cases could it even POSSIBLY provide a greater benefit. Some of the arguments for are speculative as they ignore many unknown longitudinal impacts which generally outweigh the greatest (yet very small) benefits for reducing the severity of symptoms and long covid. The research is clear it doesn’t reduce transmissibility.

The other thing for certain is that WHO and CDC made numerous claims about the vaxxx that were proven to be untrue. Those of us who exercised reasonable discretion siding against were mocked and attacked despite being mostly correct.


Streamer

Well, to claim that 'the vaccines are safe and effective,' you would need to redefine the terms vaccine, safe, and effective. My 1984 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a vaccine as 'a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.' This was consistent with the CDC's definition until the COVID-19 shots, which do not meet this standard because they do not produce immunity. Instead, the current CDC definition describes a vaccine as 'a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,' which aligns more closely with a prophylactic.

The same 1984 dictionary defines safe as 'free from danger or injury.' While the COVID shots may generally be free from immediate injury, they are not free from the potential danger of injury. Under the Emergency Use Authorizations, long-term studies were not conducted to assess long-term risks. Consequently, the definition of safe has been adjusted to mean 'reasonably free of immediate harm,' which differs from being free of the danger of harm and allows for some level of acceptable risk. Myocarditis, a known risk of the shot, is deemed an 'acceptable' risk by authorities, but it contradicts the dictionary definition of 'safe' as completely free from harm. For example, the potential for unknown long-term effects, such as immune system dysregulation, remains a danger that violates the dictionary definition of 'safe' due to the absence of comprehensive studies. So it is unsafe by definition for two separate reasons.

The 1984 dictionary defines effective as 'having an intended or expected effect; producing a strong impression or response.' However, the efficacy of the COVID shots falls short of the intended or expected effect seen in traditional vaccines, rendering them less effective. When these shots were introduced, they were claimed to be highly effective, but their actual efficacy proved lower than promised. So the expectation and intent was higher so it's ineffective by definition. I don't even know how they could stretch the truth to even explain how this could be true, it's just hope--they hoped it was effective.

Therefore, stating that 'the vaccines are safe and effective' is misleading when using the traditional definitions of vaccine, safe, and effective. A more accurate statement would be that the COVID shot is reasonably free of immediate harm but has disappointing efficacy. In the phrase 'the vaccines are safe and effective,' only the words the, are, and and hold true--slim pickings. I refuse to call the COVID shot a vaccine because I use the King's English, not redefined newspeak terms. In the King's English, a vaccine aligns with the 1984 dictionary definition. Calling the COVID shot a vaccine concedes to altered language.

Since the benefit of the shot is minimal, while the risks remain unknown, I choose to avoid the unknown risk by avoiding a shot with little to no benefit. Known things tend to have a liner distribution while unknown things tend to have a logarithmic distribution, so unknown things can get out of hand very quickly. In other words, in domains where knowledge is strong and effects are well-understood, relationships often appear linear and predictable. In domains with high uncertainty or complexity, relationships often follow logarithmic or other non-linear patterns. So you don't want the known to the unknown in equal balance but defer to the unknown because of it's non-linear distribution having out-sized effects. To make an informed decision, one only needed to recognize that those promoting the shot were either lying or making unproven claims asserting things they could not know due to the lack of long-term studies. In either case, they were not trustworthy. Only logic, reason, and evidence should guide decisions. Until definitive evidence is provided keep your dictionary handy, don’t get hooked by newspeak, reel in the truth and don't take the bait of those who redefine words to promote a shot lacking comprehensive studies.