If you could have stopped at the first paragraph I would have upvoted you. I actually had to remove my upvote. Why did you feel it was so important to attack a stranger on the internet, it destroyed the credibility of your initial statement?
The truth does not care for your upvotes, and my credibility is absolutely intact. Check with a more objective thinking device and verify reality.
An objective, fact-based thinking devices (ChatGPT4) disagree with you. Here is my prompt and its response, which you can independently verify:
I am reading a comment thread on the internet. I need your opinion. First the thread:
Comment 1:
Avoid Musk at all costs.It would be embarassing to drive a Tesla today, especially for the demographic that would buy these EVs.You see one driving and you know the driver is a uninformed douchebag.
⸻
Commentor reply:
Embarrassing? Tesla single handedly showed an alternative to oil-based vehicles with an absolutely superior machine. I put 200,000 miles on my Tesla model 3 driving it off road to some of the most remote places in the US, and it never broke a sweat. It was the first car that could keep up with my adventure spirit. If a traditional manufacturer made this machine it would have cost $300,000 for what it can do.While you are here buying in to big oil brain washing, this company has single handedly done more in the war against climate change, and dystopian hellscape oil/based economies like Saudi Arabia, than any other company in history.Musk might be autistic and have a lot of dumb ideas he can’t keep contained but he undeniably has a better vision for what technology the public has access to. A single person’s personality is such a dumb reason to support oil companies, with the blood of millions on their hands, and possibly the end of this planet. Keep drinking the koolaide, though!
⸻
Who is correct here objectively speaking? Which view seems accurate and credible?
ChatGPT4:
The comments you’ve shared express strong opinions and biases towards Tesla and Elon Musk, highlighting the polarizing nature of public figures and innovative companies.The first comment criticizes Tesla and its customers, labeling them as “uninformed.” This viewpoint seems to focus more on social perception and the controversial aspects of Elon Musk’s public persona rather than the technical or environmental merits of Tesla vehicles. The argument lacks specific factual support and primarily uses ad hominem attacks, which weakens its credibility.The second comment provides a counterpoint, emphasizing the positive impacts of Tesla on the automotive industry, particularly its role in popularizing electric vehicles (EVs) and challenging traditional automotive and oil industries. This commenter shares personal experiences with the Tesla Model 3, attesting to its performance and reliability, which adds a layer of anecdotal evidence to their argument. They also acknowledge Musk’s personality and controversial ideas but argue that these should not overshadow the technological and environmental contributions of his company.Objectively, the second commenter provides a more fact-based perspective by citing specific contributions of Tesla to the automotive industry and environmental efforts. Their argument is bolstered by personal experience and a broader view of the company’s impact on global issues like climate change and economic structures reliant on oil.In conclusion, the second comment appears more accurate and credible based on the use of specific examples and a focus on substantial issues rather than personal attacks.
“Truth doesn’t care”…proceeds to ask GPT4 their opinion as if AI is some sort of judge. Judge then proceeds to provide opinion on the arguments presented and not the contents therein. Asks GPT4 to independently verify, it doesn’t. Instead claims first poster of an Adhom and says that limits credibility, but insists replies anecdotes make him more right. But doesn’t mention replies ad hom.
If you could have stopped at the first paragraph I would have upvoted you. I actually had to remove my upvote. Why did you feel it was so important to attack a stranger on the internet, it destroyed the credibility of your initial statement?
The truth does not care for your upvotes, and my credibility is absolutely intact. Check with a more objective thinking device and verify reality.
An objective, fact-based thinking devices (ChatGPT4) disagree with you. Here is my prompt and its response, which you can independently verify:
I am reading a comment thread on the internet. I need your opinion. First the thread:
Comment 1:
Avoid Musk at all costs.It would be embarassing to drive a Tesla today, especially for the demographic that would buy these EVs.You see one driving and you know the driver is a uninformed douchebag.
⸻
Commentor reply:
Embarrassing? Tesla single handedly showed an alternative to oil-based vehicles with an absolutely superior machine. I put 200,000 miles on my Tesla model 3 driving it off road to some of the most remote places in the US, and it never broke a sweat. It was the first car that could keep up with my adventure spirit. If a traditional manufacturer made this machine it would have cost $300,000 for what it can do.While you are here buying in to big oil brain washing, this company has single handedly done more in the war against climate change, and dystopian hellscape oil/based economies like Saudi Arabia, than any other company in history.Musk might be autistic and have a lot of dumb ideas he can’t keep contained but he undeniably has a better vision for what technology the public has access to. A single person’s personality is such a dumb reason to support oil companies, with the blood of millions on their hands, and possibly the end of this planet. Keep drinking the koolaide, though!
⸻
Who is correct here objectively speaking? Which view seems accurate and credible?
ChatGPT4:
The comments you’ve shared express strong opinions and biases towards Tesla and Elon Musk, highlighting the polarizing nature of public figures and innovative companies.The first comment criticizes Tesla and its customers, labeling them as “uninformed.” This viewpoint seems to focus more on social perception and the controversial aspects of Elon Musk’s public persona rather than the technical or environmental merits of Tesla vehicles. The argument lacks specific factual support and primarily uses ad hominem attacks, which weakens its credibility.The second comment provides a counterpoint, emphasizing the positive impacts of Tesla on the automotive industry, particularly its role in popularizing electric vehicles (EVs) and challenging traditional automotive and oil industries. This commenter shares personal experiences with the Tesla Model 3, attesting to its performance and reliability, which adds a layer of anecdotal evidence to their argument. They also acknowledge Musk’s personality and controversial ideas but argue that these should not overshadow the technological and environmental contributions of his company.Objectively, the second commenter provides a more fact-based perspective by citing specific contributions of Tesla to the automotive industry and environmental efforts. Their argument is bolstered by personal experience and a broader view of the company’s impact on global issues like climate change and economic structures reliant on oil.In conclusion, the second comment appears more accurate and credible based on the use of specific examples and a focus on substantial issues rather than personal attacks.
“Truth doesn’t care”…proceeds to ask GPT4 their opinion as if AI is some sort of judge. Judge then proceeds to provide opinion on the arguments presented and not the contents therein. Asks GPT4 to independently verify, it doesn’t. Instead claims first poster of an Adhom and says that limits credibility, but insists replies anecdotes make him more right. But doesn’t mention replies ad hom.
Yeah…okay.