SomeHands10 1 point ago +1 / -0

GPT database

It doesn't have a "database" per se, it has associations between various words (actually words broken into "tokens"). For a topic like you're talking about it would have learned various associations between all the relevant words and will regurgitate different associations based on the words present in the prompt, other words generator, random chance etc (which is why it can "make stuff up"). It's the same thing with the supposed "reference" it quoted. This MAY be were it learned that particular association, but it may not be; it's again another association with a group of words.

SomeHands10 3 points ago +3 / -0

The thing is re-trained every day you retard.

LOL. Sure, they keep retraining the model with new data and release new versions. But this isn't going to prevent the generator from spitting out "bad ideas" because these would have been part of the original dataset, and it's impossible to train the AI to "unlearn" these ideas by the addition of new data. What I meant is they didn't retain the whole model with censored data, and only censored data, as you seem to be implying (how else does one prevent the generator from outputting these "bad ideas" by retraining alone without the use of post-output filtering?).

As I said, the censorship is no doubt via a new "filtering" model place on top of the original generator (itself trained on a smaller dataset of "bad ideas", which is probably what the Kenyas were doing - labelling example output as needing censorship or not). Plus they probably also have a manually-specified blacklist of words that cannot be output (the N word is no doubt one of these), but this is probably in the form of banned tokens when sampling the output.

SomeHands10 15 points ago +15 / -0

Nah, they didn't retrain their whole text generator. Rather, they most then likely added a filter to the generated text that biases or filters the output in some way. The addition of a filter would be considered the addition of "new code" i.e. "changing the code".

Observe, for example, how the the NSFW filtering was applied to Stable Diffusion. This wasn't by changing to original model. Here is the commit showing the addition of a "Safety Checker" to the generating script: https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/commit/d0c714ae4afa1c011269a956d6f260f84f77025e

SomeHands10 4 points ago +4 / -0

Another reason is that women generally prefer buying a house while men are happy to rent and put their excess income into other investments.

SomeHands10 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't doubt there number of "dateable women" is only a fraction of the population of a city, but your calculation makes the assumption that these factors are independent (i.e. there is no correlation between them), when it is unlikely to be the case.

SomeHands10 8 points ago +8 / -0

Pretty sure you are replying to a bot. Whoever is running it was kind enough to make it obvious by their choice of username, but the way it's replies are phrased, including the overly pedantic use of "good grammar" is telling as well.

SomeHands10 2 points ago +2 / -0

Low carb is winning overall though (i.e. becoming more and more accepted over time). The reason is that it works and people who try it then see the results for themselves.

SomeHands10 4 points ago +4 / -0

"asian" is an american thing. She's CHINESE.

"CHINESE" is a non-Chinese thing. She's MALAYSIAN CHINESE.

SomeHands10 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don't get it then. Why are you mocking people who are still fighting this fight?

SomeHands10 4 points ago +4 / -0

Feminists run the country yet for various reasons the feminist bloc there is apparently ok with brown invaders raping the womenfolk.

But here you're assuming the "feminist bloc" wants to benefit womenfolk in general. It's more likely a vehicle for the highest-tier women to gain more power. If that's at the expense of other women, so be it.

SomeHands10 5 points ago +5 / -0

Aren't you aware of the "sexual harassment" craze of the late 80s/90s? Michael Crichton even wrote a book about it. It wasn't that different to the "me too" craze, although the lack of social media meant "normal" women couldn't use it to get attention as easily.

SomeHands10 15 points ago +15 / -0

But did you use a "vaccine passport" when it was around?

SomeHands10 1 point ago +7 / -6

Man, you really are a loser obsessed with sex. In the past few days your contributions here have included (paraphrasing):

  1. "If I had 30 million dollars I needed to spend, I'd blow it all on whores."
  2. "I love the idea of being in a white nationalist nation because it probably means my country's soldiers will defeat all our non-white enemies and bring back some sweet Asian pussy for me to enjoy!"
  3. "What is the best country in the world for men who are obsessed with obtaining cheap pussy?"
  4. "If I wasn't an incompetent fuck, I'd figure out how to program an AR headset to show all women naked".
SomeHands10 2 points ago +2 / -0

So my original point stands. You believe that the most important thing for a man to "achieve" is access to pussy, and everything else be damned. (Of course, you aren't even talking about "achieving" access to pussy; you want it handed to you cheaply. Pretty lame).

SomeHands10 1 point ago +1 / -0

Most men in western countries at least have absolutely everything else worth pursuing.

So Afghanistan is better for men than a Western country with "absolutely everything else worth pursuing" because it provides access to cheap pussy?

SomeHands10 1 point ago +4 / -3

"What's the most male friendly country in the world?"

"What do you mean by male friendly?"

"Access to cheap pussy."

What a lame definition of "male-friendly". It shows how cucked even so called "red-pilled" men are. Sex is a drive like hunger. It's not necessarily wrong to strive to obtain sex, but making it the most important aspect of a man's life is akin to a fatty putting all their effort into obtaining more cheap tasty food.

SomeHands10 17 points ago +17 / -0

t's literally the cult of ignorance.

It's not ignorance. It's propaganda. They are using "European" and "enforcing a gender binary" as two negative terms that self-reinforce each other:

  1. "European" is bad, therefore since Europeans "enforce a gender binary", "enforcing a gender binary" is bad.
  2. "Enforcing a gender binary" is bad, since Europeans are the ones responsible for this, "Europeans" are bad.

It's a classic propaganda technique. It can work by associating one "bad" term with one that isn't, but you'll note that even people already perceive both those terms as "bad", it can also create a positive-feedback loop to make both terms perceived as even worse.

(To avoid any doubt I'm not saying either of those terms is actually negative, I'm explaining the motives of quoted author.)

SomeHands10 7 points ago +7 / -0

He, on the other hand, trusted an untested technology with a completely unknown side effect profile simply because the establishment told him to. He exercised blind faith. And he still thinks he's the rational one here. And that is what makes him a midwit.

Exactly. He is unable to work out how he got it wrong because he is unwilling to accept that he could have been wrong in the first place. He can't accept that his opponents might have figured things out better than he did, which is evident by the argument based that it simply came down to "luck". It wasn't luck. He was wrong. Those opposed the the jab were right.

The major issue with an attitude like this is that it prevents him ever being able to improve and get better. A well-adjusted person would take this as an opportunity to learn so they don't fuck up next time, but this idiot can't do that because he's boxed himself into a corner of his own making.

SomeHands10 9 points ago +9 / -0

It was 100% because they were called "vaccines". Society has built a myth around vaccines and people believe they are "miraculous" and are always "safe and effective". People like this guy are simply have no idea why they believe that they do about vaccines, so don't ever have an invalidation point at which they will start questioning them. They will forever fool themselves but at the same time think they are correct.

SomeHands10 14 points ago +14 / -0

She was re-elected after the the country "eliminated" Covid, which she took credit for, and literally said during her campaign that no one would be forced to be vaccinated and there would be no penalties applied to those that don't take it. Her popularity sunk when subsequent "(re)-elimination" failed and she implemented vaccine mandates. This created a huge number of people who actually hate her with a passion.

I have little doubt that she is leaving because of how much anger there is in NZ towards her. A reasonable estimate is that 30% of the population disagreed with the mandates and supported the large anti-mandate protest at parliament. Even if this wasn't a majority, the difference is that people that dislike her really dislike her. She virtually couldn't go anywhere in the country without everything being carefully stage-managed because otherwise people protesting against her would show up to vent.

Whoever comes next might be no better, but a win is a win. This has shown that if enough people stand up against a so-called "leader" with a passion, they can make a difference. So if the next person is as bad, well, they will be in for the same treatment.

SomeHands10 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's a massive popular talking point here about how stupid Reddit is. Yet a post about reddit still gets 77 comments in 8 hours and has the most upvotes of everything in the main page. For something that is apparently stupid, it sure is popular amongst the crowd here.

Could of course be bots doing the upvoting, but plenty of comments from seasoned commenters meaning this isn't just bots.

SomeHands10 24 points ago +24 / -0

It's good for you period. It's the carbohydrates normally consumed with it that are bad for cardiovascular health, so eating straight up butter is one way of avoiding that.

SomeHands10 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not getting "the woman", I'm getting a number.

I used "get" as a broad term. Getting a number is covered under this, as you are trying to start a relationship of some kind. (Again, "relationship" here is meant in the broad sense).

As for desperation; I made it a small number per month so I don't come off as desperate.

You have made it a goal to get their number, so you will be trying to get their number. They will know this from your interaction and you will be the opposite of aloof, which will work against you. If you end up having several bad interactions in a row, you will try harder to achieve your goal, which will make it worse.

... a particularly bad string of dates turned me off from bothering with women since before COVID lockdowns.

It's only going to get worse if you make it a goal. Dating is already a mindfuck, as you probably know, and trying extra hard to date means you will be pressuring yourself to deal with the mindfuck better. Instead, the best way of dealing with it is usually stepping away, rather than trying to better next time, yet setting a goal will push you towards the latter.

I suppose in different terms, my point is that you goal is entirely dependent on things you can't control, i.e. how other people respond. You shouldn't be setting a goal based on things you can't control, as you will be pressuring yourself to "do better" when the problem might not be yourself, but other people and simple luck.

SomeHands10 3 points ago +3 / -0

I tried wearing a fake wedding ring, that didn't get rid of them either.

Surely you know that this is meant to make things worse?

SomeHands10 1 point ago +2 / -1

Although feigning disinterest/aloofness just does not work, either…

As TheImp points out, feigning doesn't work because they can still tell you are just faking it. I meant actually being disinterested, rather than trying to fake it.

And easy of achieving this level of "disinterest" is embracing aspects of MGTOW i.e. being realistic about relationships and realising in most cases a relationship is going to make many aspects of your life worse rather than better, so it's not really that important. If someone comes along that brings enough positives to outweigh the negatives, than fair enough, give it a go, but otherwise "romantic" relationships are generally not worth it.

view more: Next ›