zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. dubcan+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-05-16 19:19:00
I am curious, what part of ChatGPT is "woke mind virus" infected? Is there a particular category or something that it is politically biased on?
replies(2): >>sergio+n1 >>tomrod+H1
2. sergio+n1[view] [source] 2023-05-16 19:23:18
>>dubcan+(OP)
I will give you two examples of stuff I have experienced:

1. It will tell you jokes about white people, but not jokes about latinos or black people.

2. It will tell you jokes about catholics, but not muslims.

If they were at least honest about their hatred of certain people/religions at least I would respect it. I wouldn't like it but I would respect their honesty. It's the doublespeak and the in-your-face lies that rub me the wrong way. I don't like it.

Why can't these people just be kind humans and follow the letter of the law and leave themselves out of it. They can't help themselves!

replies(1): >>briant+s3
3. tomrod+H1[view] [source] 2023-05-16 19:24:28
>>dubcan+(OP)
I tend to think people referring to a "woke mind virus" are eponymous to their own afflictions. A few decades back, the same sort of attitude was present with calling everyone else "sheeple." These attitudinal cousins are reductive to complex things.
◧◩
4. briant+s3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-16 19:31:20
>>sergio+n1
> I will give you two examples of stuff I have experienced:

> 1. It will tell you jokes about white people, but not jokes about latinos or black people.

> 2. It will tell you jokes about catholics, but not muslims.

I'm not partial of imposing group affiliations as a proxy to personal identity. It goes deeper than a "woke mind virus" but a problem with imposed collectivism where a person is defined as a member of an arbitrary socially defined group. Instead one is free to define oneself however they wish, member of a socially constructed group or not. I also don't agree to be coerced to define another person as how they wish me to define them. I support the freedom to listen & to have a perspective that shall not be infringed. If someone else has a mental or emotional issue with how I define that person, it is that person's problem, not mine...not that I will even attempt to define another person with words.

I can only describe with words, not define. Perhaps using words to define a person has it's own set of issues when codified into language & statute.

[go to top]