ChatGPT thread
- Thread starter sfoster
- Start date
Lightning bolt in the ear?
I'm curious: was it just the YouTuber who made this (ridiculously untrue) claim, or did ChatGPT recycle it as part of an answer?
It was just the youtuber, although as i did my own research very little ending of slavery was the result of a war.
There was the slave revolt that overthrew Haiti that Mara mentioned, but if you look to places like Canada, South America, Britian, China, Japan, Australia, etc all of the research that i did these places all ended slavery through peaceful legislation.
What's really cool is that Greenland had no notable history of slavery at all. that place is so huge its practically a continent.
i'd love some examples to contradict the youtuber if you know of any
Last edited:
And of course our American Civil War
Pretty much all the countries of Western Europe for starters, in WW1 and again in WW2, with additional contributions from Canada, New Zealand, Australia and a variety of African countries.
Huh? Australia was the most racist of all the countires I could find in terms of abolition, they definitely weren't dying to free their slaves
I really have no idea what you're talking about, sorry, you're gonna have to be more specific.
How did Australians sacrifice their lives to free slaves of another race?
I suppose you could try to make WW2 about 'slavery' of jews but I have personally never considered it a slavery issue and more a genocide one.
Last edited:
Well I did skip over france cause theres so many damn countries, i couldn't do them all.
So i went back to read about france now and it looks like they qualify go french
Slavery was one of the reasons the French people revolted in 1794. The abolition of slavery was part of the broader struggle for liberty, equality, and fraternity that characterized the French Revolution. The slave revolt in Haiti, which was a French colony at the time, also put pressure on the French government to abolish slavery. The National Convention declared slavery as "contrary to the principles of the Revolution" and abolished it in 1794 as a result. So, while other factors such as political corruption, economic crisis, and social inequalities also contributed to the French Revolution, the issue of slavery was certainly a significant aspect of the revolutionary movement.
It is estimated that between 20,000 and 40,000 enslaved people in France's colonies were freed after the abolition of slavery in 1794 during the French Revolution. The exact number is difficult to determine, as records from this time are not complete. However, it is known that the abolition of slavery had a significant impact on the French colonies and the lives of enslaved people. It was a major step towards the goal of universal freedom and equality, which was a central tenet of the French Revolution.
So i went back to read about france now and it looks like they qualify
go frenchSlavery was one of the reasons the French people revolted in 1794. The abolition of slavery was part of the broader struggle for liberty, equality, and fraternity that characterized the French Revolution. The slave revolt in Haiti, which was a French colony at the time, also put pressure on the French government to abolish slavery. The National Convention declared slavery as "contrary to the principles of the Revolution" and abolished it in 1794 as a result. So, while other factors such as political corruption, economic crisis, and social inequalities also contributed to the French Revolution, the issue of slavery was certainly a significant aspect of the revolutionary movement.
It is estimated that between 20,000 and 40,000 enslaved people in France's colonies were freed after the abolition of slavery in 1794 during the French Revolution. The exact number is difficult to determine, as records from this time are not complete. However, it is known that the abolition of slavery had a significant impact on the French colonies and the lives of enslaved people. It was a major step towards the goal of universal freedom and equality, which was a central tenet of the French Revolution.
Your original comment was that white americans are the only people in the history ... to fight and die for the freedom of people of another race
There's no reference to slavery in that, but there have been plenty of other Caucasians who have dedicated their lives to fighting the injustice done by their colonising cousins in non-Caucasian parts of the world. Given that "white Americans" is a relatively recent concept (all white Americans being descended from northern European migrants), it's quite the leap to award this "only people in history" honour en masse to the same families that were most involved in the exploitation of Africans, Asians and other Europeans only a couple of centuries beforehand - not to forget the wholesale eradication of native Americans. In WW2, the Australians fought for the freedom of various Africans, Asians, Arabs and (other) Europeans.
From the endless examples of AI chat I've seen these last few weeks (not just here - they're everywhere) it's coming across as a strange conflation of carefully curated "truth" and an impressive amount of banal padding - of the kind that's been stuffing up internet search results (and landing pages) for a good few years now. If this is the direction things are going, I don't think our creative writers have anything to fear.
Wut???No it wasn't. Slavery barely registered on the radar of the French people in the 1790s. A half-hearted proposal to abolish it in 1789 - the beginning of the French Revolution - was dropped, and in 1790 the concept of slavery as A Good Thing was formally approved by the government of the day.
Over in the West Indies, though, the French colonisers were caught in a difficult position, because both the British and the Spanish had decided to "abolish slavery" so they could undermine the economic viablility of the French plantations there. So the French "abolished slavery" to re-level the playing field. It had nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary French people living in France - many of whom were just as indentured to a wealthy landowner as their non-white equivalents on the other side of the world, but not freed by the 1794 law. Mr/Ms ChatBot needs to go back to school.
Last edited:
The way you stated that makes it sounds like it was my words - to be clear for anyone just now tuning in - it's someone elses words about white americans and i am researching to find out if its true or not.Your original comment was that white americans are the only people in the history ... to fight and die for the freedom of people of another race
There's no reference to slavery in that, but there have been plenty of other Caucasians who have dedicated their lives to fighting the injustice done by their colonising cousins in non-Caucasian parts of the world. Given that "white Americans" is a relatively recent concept (all white Americans being descended from northern European migrants), it's quite the leap to award this "only people in history" honour en masse to the same families that were most involved in the exploitation of Africans, Asians and other Europeans only a couple of centuries beforehand - not to forget the wholesale eradication of native Americans. In WW2, the Australians fought for the freedom of various Africans, Asians, Arabs and (other) Europeans.
From the endless examples of AI chat I've seen these last few weeks (not just here - they're everywhere) it's coming across as a strange conflation of carefully curated "truth" and an impressive amount of banal padding - of the kind that's been stuffing up internet search results (and landing pages) for a good few years now. If this is the direction things are going, I don't think our creative writers have anything to fear.
In that original statement there was an implication that 'fighting for the freedom' === 'fighting for them to not be slaves' as slavery is the opposite of freedom. That's definitely the context that the statement was made in.
You've posted a couple times now about how its wrong and you have yet to provide a specific example to contradict it?
What race from where? was fighting to free what other race? in what location?
And you even mentioned Australia as a counter example so I'd love to hear specifically how
Everything you've said is too vague for me since im not a student of history, something about WW1 and WW2 and Australia but I can't find any record of slavery being legally abolished as a result of WW1 or WW2. I'm not sure what you mean.
Although 'white americans' is a recent concept --- so is intermixing with different races!
Not so long ago it was only asians in asia, only africans in africa, etc so for like 99% of human history the was not even a possibility for people of one race to die for the freedom of another.
No it wasn't. Slavery barely registered on the radar of the French people in the 1790s. A half-hearted proposal to abolish it in 1789 - the beginning of the French Revolution - was dropped, and in 1790 the concept of slavery as A Good Thing was formally approved by the government of the day.
Over in the West Indies, though, the French colonisers were caught in a difficult position, because both the British and the Spanish had decided to "abolish slavery" so they could undermine the economic viablility of the French plantations there. So the French "abolished slavery" to re-level the playing field. It had nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary French people living in France - many of whom were just as indentured to a wealthy landowner as their non-white equivalents on the other side of the world, but not freed by the 1794 law. Mr/Ms ChatBot needs to go back to school.
Thanks, I did think that sounded pretty strange...
This is the problem with chatGPT... it makes it fun to explore and ask questions but then it gives BS like this.
Appreciate the french history perspective
Last edited:
And there you have a great example of the weakness of machine learning: context is everything. You're referring to my comment; my comment referred to your reference to an unidentified YouTuber; the YouTuber made a claim implying that freedom was equivalent to not being a slave. That's layer upon layer of fog and confusion.
As above, my original challenge was to the unidentified YouTuber's implication that only white Americans ever died for someone else's freedom. In your post, there was no reference to slavery. There may have been an implication in the original video that freedom is equivalent to not being a bought-and-sold slave of African origin, but that's not apparent in your reference.
I understood the relevant phrase to mean freedom as in ... freedom, the state of being free, not under the control of someone else. There are many ways in which individuals or groups or whole countries or whole races (define race, while we're at it) are not free, and countless examples of how other individuals or groups or whole countries have gone to great effort to liberate them - or protect them before they lose their freedom.
This is where I believe AI chat will stumble in its evolution, with an inherent bias creeping into its responses as it learns only from sources that have been approved by humans with their own inherent biases - a situation akin to the weaknesses and biases described in the use of facial recognition software, or the infamous social media echo-chambers that recycle fake news.
Exactly.
Ah okay I get it now.
Here I have quoted myself below
The context is right there, you said in my post there was no reference to slavery but its pretty clearly contiguous and part of the same thought.
looks like we just went back and forth a bunch over a simple misunderstanding
nbd easy mistake to make and ive done it myself
so it looks like he was correct and there aren't any other instances in history of people fighting and dying to abolish slavery of another race
all we hear over in USA is how white people are bad, so its nice that there's some good stuff too, more in line with reality that people of a race aren't evil or good but a mix of both cause they're all just different people.
Last edited:
When you can use voice to create your own 3D reality in VR, and the NPC all have different personalities that respond like real people, holy shit we are one step closer to the holodeck.
Also
Damn that's so basic but I never really tried to define what an animal is.
That is our defining characteristic, that we feed on other organisms.
Sure some plants do it... but EVERY animal does.
Also
Damn that's so basic but I never really tried to define what an animal is.
That is our defining characteristic, that we feed on other organisms.
Sure some plants do it... but EVERY animal does.
Last edited:
No bacteria, animals, plants and fungai are all distinct groups.
Well chatGPT is free you could ask yourself lol
"Alive" refers to the state of being alive, which is the characteristic of a living organism that distinguishes it from non-living things. To be considered "alive," an organism must have the following qualities:
- Metabolism: The ability to take in energy and use it to grow, reproduce, and maintain basic functions.
- Growth: The ability to increase in size and develop over time.
- Response to stimuli: The ability to sense and respond to changes in the environment.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce offspring or replicate itself.
- Adaptation: The ability to change and evolve over time in response to environmental pressures.
I don't like talking to ChatGPT, it gets snippy with me.
So is a virus alive? It only does 4 and 5 on your list.
No it must have all 5 to be alive.