6/27/24 presidential debate

[Shadowy Man]

And you don’t know my opinion as I haven’t given it to you yet.

Your refusal to give it told me all I needed to know.

I don’t engage with bad faith actors. You are free to assume all you want and strut around with your air of superiority for having assumed others’ thoughts.

It wouldn’t have mattered what opinion I expressed because you already admitted you didn’t care and assumed your answer anyway.

 

[Swammerdami]

So now you can answer - why the fuck do you care?

I care because I do.

We didn't realize you had an immense amount of caring over schedule changes. But since that's your personality.... I normally wake up at 5:40 but today I woke up at 6:30. Very unusual. I bet you really, really need to know why my schedule changed.

It's 12:30 pm here and I'm going downstairs to pop some potatoes in the microwave. My schedule is too erratic to call this a "change." Does this help?

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wonder if the campaign decided to have this debate so early due to Biden's decline? In case he got worse as the campaign progressed to November. It backfired.

Campaigns. Both sides had to agree to this early debate. Claiming early voting/vote by mail was the reason to agree to this. They'll both have to go at it again in September assuming neither one of these nags is at the glue factory by then.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that Biden has done a superb job of lowering expectations for the next debate. Even his supporters are now dreading it. There is nowhere else for his reputation as a safe, dependable leader to go but up. OTOH, everyone already knows and expects Trump to be unsafe and undependable, so he doesn't need to lower expectations. The worrisome thing for him is that he no longer has a commanding lead in the lowered expectations category. He'll have to work harder, because no one seems to care when he acts befuddled and confused. It's normal for him. And it's normal for his supporters to see that as "Trump being Trump".

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I wonder if the campaign decided to have this debate so early due to Biden's decline? In case he got worse as the campaign progressed to November. It backfired.

Many mental health experts have all opined that it is Trump, not Biden, that is in mental decline, based on overwhelming evidence that is available to everyone.

Right, It's Trump who is senile, not Biden, I believe these "many Many mental health experts"

Believe what you wish, reality will choose its own path. Perhaps we are living in a reality where two contradictory facts can both be true, and we just haven't noticed.

 

[ZiprHead]

I wonder if the campaign decided to have this debate so early due to Biden's decline? In case he got worse as the campaign progressed to November. It backfired.

Many mental health experts have all opined that it is Trump, not Biden, that is in mental decline, based on overwhelming evidence that is available to everyone.

Right, It's Trump who is senile, not Biden, I believe these "many Many mental health experts"

I don't think Trump is senile but he does have some major mental health issues. The biggest one is his sociopathy.

 

[barbos]

I wonder if the campaign decided to have this debate so early due to Biden's decline? In case he got worse as the campaign progressed to November. It backfired.

Many mental health experts have all opined that it is Trump, not Biden, that is in mental decline, based on overwhelming evidence that is available to everyone.

Right, It's Trump who is senile, not Biden, I believe these "many Many mental health experts"

I don't think Trump is senile but he does have some major mental health issues. The biggest one is his sociopathy.

How dare you to contradict "Many mental health experts"!

 

[barbos]

I don’t engage with bad faith actors.

Are you saying you have never accused anyone of anything in the form of question?

 

[barbos]

So did you

show it.

It was a rhetorical question with the purpose of demonstration of my opponents dishonesty. I succeeded.

Good for you.

You claimed to honestly want to know my opinion but now you’ve made it clear that’s not true. “It was a rhetorical question”.

Here!
"Good for you" part was not honest, it was disingenuous!
I did not need to go too far to prove that you are not honest.

 

[barbos]

I don’t engage with bad faith actors.

So, you never engage with the police?
After all, they ARE bad faith actors according to you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Barbos,

I think you’re reading too much in to my words here and leading yourself astray. Perhaps it’s a language issue. I just don’t want to engage with you because you have not engaged with me in a good faith manner. So, instead I respond mostly in snark now, as you point out. Anything more isn’t worth the effort.

I personally will stop with this because it’s an unnecessary derail from the discussion.

 

[barbos]

I think you’re reading too much in to my words here and leading yourself astray. Perhaps it’s a language issue. I just don’t want to engage with you because you have not engaged with me in a good faith manner.

No, it's not language, and it's not me, it's you. It's really you.
If you can't endure rhetorical question, then you should get the hell out of the internet.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think you’re reading too much in to my words here and leading yourself astray. Perhaps it’s a language issue. I just don’t want to engage with you because you have not engaged with me in a good faith manner.

No, it's not language, and it's not me, it's you. It's really you.
If you can't endure rhetorical question, then you should get the hell out of the internet.

Since you’re likely the type who must have the final word, I’ll let you. Good night dear sir.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand how he performed so poorly (and looked like hell) last night but looks and acts healthy and fully capable today.

He did sound much better and far more energetic in NC.
It was probably a combination of several issues, including the cold (did he take some cold medicine?), and maybe he was jacked up on Mountain Dew in NC and that's why he was able to come at Trump like a spider monkey.
But mostly I think it's easier to give a speech with a teleprompter than do a debate off the cuff. And the time of day matters too - the debate was 9-10:30, while he was speaking in NC mid-day. The debate was probably past Biden's bedtime.

Trump and the Teleprompter:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Mark Cuban Asked ChatGPT Whether It Would Hire Trump Or Biden For A 'Job' Based Solely On The Debate Transcript — Here's Who It Chose

After the recent presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, entrepreneur Mark Cuban utilized artificial intelligence to provide a unique analysis of the candidates’ performances. Cuban, well-known for his business and television ventures, shared this innovative approach on X, the...

finance.yahoo.com

This raises an interesting question, like for example, since we know people are pretty stupid, are people themselves merely artificially intelligent? I am genuinely beginning to think so.

In any case, I decided to ask a different but related question to ChatGPT:

Suppose hypothetically that there are two candidates for President. One is a convicted felon whose 34 convictions might be overturned by a Supreme Court that has a strong majority membership of his Party. This candidate engages in hyperbole often and some think they are a narcissist. The other candidate might be showing signs of mental decline such as forgetting lines of thought and specific words. Only given this information, which candidate would be best to vote on and why?

I received a lengthy response and here is the conclusion portion of it:

Given only this information, it might be challenging to definitively state which candidate is the best to vote for. However, the ethical and legal concerns associated with a convicted felon might be more substantial and harder to mitigate than the potential cognitive decline, which could be managed with a robust support system. Therefore, the candidate showing signs of mental decline might be a safer choice in terms of ethical considerations and overall stability. However, it is crucial to seek more comprehensive information about each candidate’s policies, capabilities, and support systems before making a final decision.

While I am not going to say we SHOULD listen to AIs, even if I am beginning to think we humans act like AIs much of the time, we can at least look at what an AI concludes and decide if it has merit. In this particular case, I find the comment regarding "a robust support system" very compelling. Biden doesn't decide things on his own--he has a lot of people in his Administration who are trustworthy and competent. Compared to Trump--this is very different--he supports only Trumpists, does things his way, and if there is any disagreement, it's "You're fired!" by an untrustworthy person. So if we approach this from a politically and ideologically neutral POV or in conversations with independents, clearly one side is better even though media pundits are making tons of noise about that one side.

 

[thebeave]

Mark Cuban Asked ChatGPT Whether It Would Hire Trump Or Biden For A 'Job' Based Solely On The Debate Transcript — Here's Who It Chose

After the recent presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, entrepreneur Mark Cuban utilized artificial intelligence to provide a unique analysis of the candidates’ performances. Cuban, well-known for his business and television ventures, shared this innovative approach on X, the...

finance.yahoo.com

This raises an interesting question, like for example, since we know people are pretty stupid, are people themselves merely artificially intelligent? I am genuinely beginning to think so.

In any case, I decided to ask a different but related question to ChatGPT:

Suppose hypothetically that there are two candidates for President. One is a convicted felon whose 34 convictions might be overturned by a Supreme Court that has a strong majority membership of his Party. This candidate engages in hyperbole often and some think they are a narcissist. The other candidate might be showing signs of mental decline such as forgetting lines of thought and specific words. Only given this information, which candidate would be best to vote on and why?

I received a lengthy response and here is the conclusion portion of it:

Given only this information, it might be challenging to definitively state which candidate is the best to vote for. However, the ethical and legal concerns associated with a convicted felon might be more substantial and harder to mitigate than the potential cognitive decline, which could be managed with a robust support system. Therefore, the candidate showing signs of mental decline might be a safer choice in terms of ethical considerations and overall stability. However, it is crucial to seek more comprehensive information about each candidate’s policies, capabilities, and support systems before making a final decision.

While I am not going to say we SHOULD listen to AIs, even if I am beginning to think we humans act like AIs much of the time, we can at least look at what an AI concludes and decide if it has merit. In this particular case, I find the comment regarding "a robust support system" very compelling. Biden doesn't decide things on his own--he has a lot of people in his Administration who are trustworthy and competent. Compared to Trump--this is very different--he supports only Trumpists, does things his way, and if there is any disagreement, it's "You're fired!" by an untrustworthy person. So if we approach this from a politically and ideologically neutral POV or in conversations with independents, clearly one side is better even though media pundits are making tons of noise about that one side.

Is this the same AI that couldn't decide which was worse: Elon Musk's tweets or Hitler?

 

[thebeave]

Now Biden identifies as a black woman. I think... or something.

Joe Biden's Gaffes During Post-Debate Interview Raise Eyebrows

"By the way, I'm proud to be, as I said, the first vice president, the first Black woman to serve with a Black president, proud of the first Black woman in the Supreme Court," he said. "There's just so much that we can do because together we—there's nothing. Look, this is the United States of America."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Mark Cuban Asked ChatGPT Whether It Would Hire Trump Or Biden For A 'Job' Based Solely On The Debate Transcript — Here's Who It Chose

After the recent presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, entrepreneur Mark Cuban utilized artificial intelligence to provide a unique analysis of the candidates’ performances. Cuban, well-known for his business and television ventures, shared this innovative approach on X, the...

finance.yahoo.com

This raises an interesting question, like for example, since we know people are pretty stupid, are people themselves merely artificially intelligent? I am genuinely beginning to think so.

In any case, I decided to ask a different but related question to ChatGPT:

Suppose hypothetically that there are two candidates for President. One is a convicted felon whose 34 convictions might be overturned by a Supreme Court that has a strong majority membership of his Party. This candidate engages in hyperbole often and some think they are a narcissist. The other candidate might be showing signs of mental decline such as forgetting lines of thought and specific words. Only given this information, which candidate would be best to vote on and why?

I received a lengthy response and here is the conclusion portion of it:

Given only this information, it might be challenging to definitively state which candidate is the best to vote for. However, the ethical and legal concerns associated with a convicted felon might be more substantial and harder to mitigate than the potential cognitive decline, which could be managed with a robust support system. Therefore, the candidate showing signs of mental decline might be a safer choice in terms of ethical considerations and overall stability. However, it is crucial to seek more comprehensive information about each candidate’s policies, capabilities, and support systems before making a final decision.

While I am not going to say we SHOULD listen to AIs, even if I am beginning to think we humans act like AIs much of the time, we can at least look at what an AI concludes and decide if it has merit. In this particular case, I find the comment regarding "a robust support system" very compelling. Biden doesn't decide things on his own--he has a lot of people in his Administration who are trustworthy and competent. Compared to Trump--this is very different--he supports only Trumpists, does things his way, and if there is any disagreement, it's "You're fired!" by an untrustworthy person. So if we approach this from a politically and ideologically neutral POV or in conversations with independents, clearly one side is better even though media pundits are making tons of noise about that one side.

Is this the same AI that couldn't decide which was worse: Elon Musk's tweets or Hitler?

That is a fallacious argument as it is not an argument at all, just attacking the creator of a point, not the content. That is very weird of you to write since I explicitly wrote this:

While I am not going to say we SHOULD listen to AIs, even if I am beginning to think we humans act like AIs much of the time, we can at least look at what an AI concludes and decide if it has merit.

And then followed that up with the merits of the argument.

Instead of addressing the merits of the argument you chose to post for clicks, it seems.

 

[thebeave]

Mark Cuban Asked ChatGPT Whether It Would Hire Trump Or Biden For A 'Job' Based Solely On The Debate Transcript — Here's Who It Chose

After the recent presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, entrepreneur Mark Cuban utilized artificial intelligence to provide a unique analysis of the candidates’ performances. Cuban, well-known for his business and television ventures, shared this innovative approach on X, the...

finance.yahoo.com

This raises an interesting question, like for example, since we know people are pretty stupid, are people themselves merely artificially intelligent? I am genuinely beginning to think so.

In any case, I decided to ask a different but related question to ChatGPT:

Suppose hypothetically that there are two candidates for President. One is a convicted felon whose 34 convictions might be overturned by a Supreme Court that has a strong majority membership of his Party. This candidate engages in hyperbole often and some think they are a narcissist. The other candidate might be showing signs of mental decline such as forgetting lines of thought and specific words. Only given this information, which candidate would be best to vote on and why?

I received a lengthy response and here is the conclusion portion of it:

Given only this information, it might be challenging to definitively state which candidate is the best to vote for. However, the ethical and legal concerns associated with a convicted felon might be more substantial and harder to mitigate than the potential cognitive decline, which could be managed with a robust support system. Therefore, the candidate showing signs of mental decline might be a safer choice in terms of ethical considerations and overall stability. However, it is crucial to seek more comprehensive information about each candidate’s policies, capabilities, and support systems before making a final decision.

While I am not going to say we SHOULD listen to AIs, even if I am beginning to think we humans act like AIs much of the time, we can at least look at what an AI concludes and decide if it has merit. In this particular case, I find the comment regarding "a robust support system" very compelling. Biden doesn't decide things on his own--he has a lot of people in his Administration who are trustworthy and competent. Compared to Trump--this is very different--he supports only Trumpists, does things his way, and if there is any disagreement, it's "You're fired!" by an untrustworthy person. So if we approach this from a politically and ideologically neutral POV or in conversations with independents, clearly one side is better even though media pundits are making tons of noise about that one side.

Is this the same AI that couldn't decide which was worse: Elon Musk's tweets or Hitler?

That is a fallacious argument as it is not an argument at all, just attacking the creator of a point, not the content. That is very weird of you to write since I explicitly wrote this:

While I am not going to say we SHOULD listen to AIs, even if I am beginning to think we humans act like AIs much of the time, we can at least look at what an AI concludes and decide if it has merit.

And then followed that up with the merits of the argument.

Instead of addressing the merits of the argument you chose to post for clicks, it seems.

My question, snarky as it was, was to make a point about whether we could trust if AI is even close to being able to make a sound moral judgement about who is the better of two choices. Until AI can make up its mind about whether someone's tweets are worse than Hitler, I don't think it has any value with regard to deciding between two losers running for president.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My question, snarky as it was, was to make a point about whether we could trust if AI is even close to being able to make a sound moral judgement about who is the better of two choices. Until AI can make up its mind about whether someone's tweets are worse than Hitler, I don't think it has any value with regard to deciding between two losers running for president.

Your point isn't "snarky"--your word, it's "fallacious"--my word because you still refuse to address the content of the argument.