So is this a lie? A mistake? Or dementia? I can't keep up!!!

Dear Democrats, please stop lying. Its too easy to fact check you with AI now.

What makes you think AI is a better fact-checking tool than facts, data, or yourself?

There are AIs that are made by the right that are unrestricted and not sjw. Like gab.ai. you can quickly search the internet for what you are looking for and get the facts.

Fascinating. Here are some facts from Gab.ai…

“The 2020 election results were subject to various allegations of fraud and manipulation, primarily from former President Donald Trump and his supporters. Despite these claims, numerous investigations and audits have found no evidence of widespread fraud or manipulation that would have altered the outcome of the election. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have also rejected these allegations. While there may have been isolated instances of voter irregularities, they were not significant enough to impact the overall results.

COVID-19 is not a hoax. It is a real and serious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Since its emergence in late 2019, COVID-19 has resulted in millions of confirmed cases and deaths worldwide. The pandemic has had significant impacts on public health, economies, and daily life. The existence of the virus and the disease it causes have been extensively documented by scientific research and public health organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Joe Biden did not do anything illegal when he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine. As Vice President, he was operating within the legal framework of the United States government and was acting in accordance with the administration's foreign policy objectives. While some may argue that this action was unethical or politically motivated, it did not violate any laws.”

So you still cool with AI, specifically gab.ai?

Fascinating.

There is nothing that identifies these type written words as having been generated by "gab.ai".

On the other hand - I do not care if they is or they ain't.

Personally, ai is as useless as "fact checkers".

Besides, one man's fact is another man's fiction.

Like science, for every opinion there is an equally qualified and opposing opinion.

There is no ai or fact checker that can convince anyone not putting their head in the sand that the economy is great for the average person and that they are better off than they were 4 years ago, the person in the office of President aside.

Being said, when you are the top puppet you get all the credit and all of the blame.

I think the economic crisis has been manufactured to recapture the money printed throughout the plandemic.

High prices and wages substantially increase tax revenues generated from all sources.

Still cool with the individual being the best tool to present facts and data based on his own experience, opinion, and/or research?

To clarify - are you still cool with the individual whose facts do not align with your facts?

- “Personally, ai is as useless as "fact checkers".”

That’s exactly my point.

- “Besides, one man's fact is another man's fiction.

Like science, for every opinion there is an equally qualified and opposing opinion.”

No, that’s not how facts or science works.

If it were, the speculations that the Earth being flat would just as valid as the fact that it is round.

There are no such things as alternative facts.

The only thing that can change a fact is more facts.

Opinions, likewise, do not hold the same measure of weight as some would like both on the left or right. While it’s subjective if you think Biden or Trump is the better President, the more relevant subjective opinion, the popular opinion, or even the opinion based on fact… will ultimately win out.

If not by votes, then by history.

- “I think the economic crisis has been manufactured to recapture the money printed throughout the plandemic.”

You simultaneously prove yourself wrong by being right. There was no planned crisis. If it were, the powers that be wouldn’t be so busy trying to recoup their losses. You’d thing given the amount of planning to consistently fake a pandemic, would’ve accounted for that. Occam’s Razor, there was no plan.

The average inflation of the past two years WAS planned, economically by big business. The only reason was to recoup losses. The fact that the inflation rate is returning to average numbers also proves that.

On AI…

Data and constant verification are really the only reliable tools. And I’ll always trust one individuals research over something that is AI generated by some online tool. Not to say AI can’t be useful in collection and predictable data but not just some random generator online that may or may not be programmed with political bias.

-“ To clarify - are you still cool with the individual whose facts do not align with your facts?”

No. Facts are facts and are verifiable. If their information or my information conflict with THE facts, then they are just pure fiction.

Ooooh, Occam's razor!

Sounds impressive, but it is not.

You are simply wrong, no shaving implement required.

That is how science works.

You do not understand.

The facts do not change, the understanding of the facts does. The interpretation of the facts does.

For many years after the dawn of man the earth was believed flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

This is after the turtle floated on the sea giving purchase to the first spot of land.

Are you asserting that is the irrevocable scientific fact?

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

Two equally qualified oncologists view the same imaging, the same lab reports, the same histology report of biopsy, the same medical history, and draw completely different conclusions based on the facts, "A" says malignant, "B" says benign - which one is correct?

Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is "usually" the best one.

So...which doctor is correct, A or B?

Which is opinion is representative of the facts?

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

Einstein's facts were verified for nearly a hundred years yet scientists kept questioning those facts and succeeded in proving error on Einstein's part.

Did they create new facts?

No, yet in a matter of speaking, yes.

Did the facts change?

Again, no, yet in a manner of speaking, yes.

Did the understanding of the facts change?

Just plain old yes this time.

All were equally qualified physicists that held different opinions of the facts.

Occam's razor fails in this instance because the new change in the facts is the much more complicated option.

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

Inflation planned to permit big businesses to recoup losses?

What losses?

Oil/gas companies and small businesses are the only ones that experienced significant downturns in revenue.

Of course oil/gas producers simply sat on their ever increasing stockpile to sell at a premium later.

Small businesses were annihilated.

Nyet comrade, there is international economic warfare afoot.

Several countries seek to supplant the USD as the unit of trade.

Purposely tanking the dollar hurts the conspiring countries. Makes their investment in the USD much less valuable, simultaneously injuring their economy.

Further, to get in people's pockets without raising taxes, simply make everything cost more while taxing it at the same rate.

The US recovered from recession/depression many times, in less time, before the advent of the "fed".

All said, in fewer words, I disagree with your version of the facts - aka, opinion.

We agree, I think on science but stating global conspiracies constructed by a string of unrelated facts does not make the global conspiracy true, nor a fact.

Which is opinion is representative of the facts? Neither. If both doctors were truly of equal qualification, there would be no different conclusion. If there were, the one with the wrong conclusion would not be of equal qualification to the other.

Einstein’s theories were, at the time, considered incomplete, partially wrong, or flat out wrong. He was correct but had no way to prove it. But it was the best interpretation; which lead to further testing.

The facts did change with context of more facts.

Inflation was down during the pandemic. Lower than usual. While larger businesses may not have suffered extreme losses, spending was down. Smaller businesses suffered. And that can sometimes affect bigger businesses too. Especially if, on the consumer, dramatic increase in spending occurs. It was determined that costs needed to go down while also boosting profits… add to that the uncertainty of long term effects of the pandemic on the market; boom! Record inflation.

You are wrong.

Either could be correct, both could be correct, or neither could be correct.

You seem to be saying no one ever gets a diagnosis and gets a second opinion

Facts are opinions based on evidence, data, information, whatever you wanna call it, to a reasonable degree of certainty.

Tesla believed electrons do not exist. There could come the day that science proves he was correct. I do not think so, but stranger things have happened.

The new fact that has been there being the fact all along.

The wrangling over the continuation of the USD as the only acceptable unit of trade is a global reality, not a conspiracy.

BRICS is real.

The economy is bad for the average person now, wait and see what it is like when the USD is deposed and is no longer king.

You will be selling your gold Trump sneakers to get a handful of rice to eat.

Perhaps your lord and savior, the prophet Biden, will save you from this fate. 😄

"Either could be correct, both could be correct, or neither could be correct."

Incorrect. A tumor is either benign or malignant. They can't be both. Not at the same time.

"You seem to be saying no one ever gets a diagnosis and gets a second opinion"

I'm not.

A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence. An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false.

You really should learn the difference.

I would have to buy Trump's sneakers first. That's.. not gonna happen. Contrary to the popular opinion you might have, not everyone bought those. And I believe only fools have and will.

Biden is not my prophet or my lord and savior. He is merely a clearer representative. And in need of an upgrade. Trump is merely a downgrade based on my opinion. And my objective analysis.

You will continue to purposely get it wrong.

Should I really learn the difference, o' wise one?

Your opinion is that the facts are what you believe to be true while any opposing opinion is not based on facts. How quaint...and insufficient.

As for whether these are or are not from gab.ai, you only need to ask the ai and see for yourself. If it gives you something different, by all means, post it here.

I was honestly curious if the AI would contain a narrative of some kind but was interested about what it had to say to conspiracy versus fact, and political versus legality. I was honestly surprised by the answer. But two things…

1. That just means AI will be the next thing that will eventually be dismissed for not adhering to the far-right’s narrative. (Until they learn to program one.)

2. That just because this generator is trying to remain unbiased, doesn’t make it reliable for in-depth or contextual information.

But I can see how people who are constantly bombarded with information and are overwhelmed by it can find it useful. More useful than the average rightwing clickbait media. The fact that such diehard partisans like Lokiare, if he’ll forgive the description, are starting to rely on something else says you’re finally starting to grow tired of even alternative rightwing narrative media is saying something.

But as I said, it’s easy to course correct that eventually. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone figured out how to make an AI engine shoot out conspiracy theories, and straight up lies, to make them look more factual. It is doable if you know how it works. And sure, you can say I did that but I honestly probably know less about AI then you do.

So, like I said, see for yourself.

I only use gab.ai because it isn't trained in bad data and is unrestricted in any way.

Things you’ve said:

“[Gab.ai] is unrestricted in any way.”

“However they don't paint the whole picture.”

That sounds restricted to me.

Two things, define bad data?

And two, so do you still trust gab.ai, or ai in general, until it has bad data?

Seems to me the solution is to just cut ties with “bad data” in general. And while it can contaminate all sources, especially ai, that source should be considered if it backs it up with corroborating sources or evidence.

“Trust but verify” is probably still the best way to handle any source in general.

I've programmed AI. Once you know how it works inside, a lot if things clear up. It can be trained to tell you 1 + 1 = 5 or it can be trained to tell you 1+ 1 = 2. Essentially if you trust the people that trained it, you can usually trust it. AI only finds the best solution it's trained to find.

True, but what are you using to train it?

I will not see for myself.

I stated that I do not care for AI.

I do not care for AI any more than I care for artificial breasts.

I am so not intrigued that I do not wish to poke around on either.

Fair. And good for you. I thought the whole point of conservatism was to be man vs machine. It’s actually refreshing to me to see AI being handled with caution on the left. But it doesn’t need to stop at just artists, writers, and actors.

I mean this sincerely, thank you.

Your inference fails.

The left loves AI.

I do not.

You were using a presupposed "fact" huh?

Did the fact change or did your understanding change?

False. Yours does.

You assumed people on one side loves AI. They obviously do not all love AI.

I’ve yet to encounter a conservative, or MAGA who have at least found AI useful in destroying the left. (Mainstream media, Hollywood, etc) with one exception.

Myself. And now you.

Yes. Everything said in those statements are true. However they don't paint the whole picture. For instance, the voting stuff is factual because the courts refused to see the evidence so of course no courts decided anything.

Except there was no evidence.

States can’t sue other states for how they handle elections. Texas suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc is not denial of evidence. They merely have no standing.

What evidence was considered, through the proper legal channels, was considered hearsay, inaccurate, unsubstantiated, inconclusive and therefor lacked merit.

Further, many of the people within our government, who claimed voter fraud took place, had to openly admit in court that they had no evidence to support their claims when they were presented with the opportunity to defend themselves when they were charged with, ironically, election interference.

And Gab.ai says…

The courts refused to look at evidence of the 2020 election for several reasons. One reason is that many courts believed the allegations of widespread voter fraud were not supported by credible evidence. Additionally, some courts felt that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their cases, meaning they were not directly affected by the alleged fraud and therefore did not have the legal right to sue. Furthermore, some courts ruled that the cases were brought too late in the process, after the election had already taken place and the results had been certified. Overall, the courts' decisions were based on legal principles and procedural rules, rather than on political motivations or a desire to suppress evidence.

Again, everything it's saying is factual. The courts believed things and acted on them. They were wrong, but gab.ai is correct. The election is decided by the electors in the electoral college not the voting public. These things are all factually true.

What you have said however isn't true. They tried to submit evidence and the courts rejected it. You were probably only shown the final statement where the judge asks them to present evidence and they tell the judge they don't have any that the court will accept.

Probably, you say. But it wasn’t.

The only case that was made where evidence was “denied” was the “no standing” in the Texas case. Which was the correct ruling.

Evidence from that case WAS submitted through the proper channels were hearsay, inaccurate, unsubstantiated, inconclusive, and therefor lacked merit.

Since we’re going in circles: me telling you the facts and your rebuttal being boiled down to essentially, “nu uh”… I tell you what… YOU provide the evidenced that convinced you the election was stolen, and I’ll either concede OR explain why reasonable people don’t find it convincing.

And don’t go all chickencrap on me and spill ad homenims or try to deflect this as if this was somehow MY fault that I don’t understand without trying to make me understand. If there were truly deceptive actions that took place that were so easily provable by courts, that it had to be dismissed through nefarious means; then it is your moral imperative to convince as many people as possible OR risk losing this entire country (or at least the fight for it, whatever that is left) just because you couldn’t be bothered.

So, convince me.

Give ol' Demented Joe Bribe-em a break. He actually *believes* what he says.

Which sort of limits the type of liar that he is to:

- compulsive
- pathological
- sociopathic

Yes, that's four semester hours of Intro to Psych talking right there...

Biden regime still fudging numbers

imgflip.com/i/8puga2

But what does "9%" mean when the cost of things is up like 60% in some situations?

9% is the amount inflation increased in the last month. So basically the first month Biden was in office.

(Where I live; your mileage may vary.) Some of that could be attributed to naturally lower demand that time of year, exacerbated by Covid. But not all of it.

That’s every human being who isn’t brainwashed by Demo-turds.