Unlike those others, Microsoft could do something about this considering they are literally part of the problem.

And yet I doubt Copilot will be going anywhere.

Yes, it’s an addiction, we’ve got to stop all these poor being lulled into a false sense of understanding and just believing anyhing the AI tells them. It is constantly telling lies about us, their betters.

Just look what happenned when I asked it about the venerable and well respected public intellectual Jordan b peterson. It went into a defamatory diatribe against his character.

And they just gobble that up those poor, uncritical and irresponsible farm hands and water carriers! We can’t have that,!

Example

Open-Minded Closed-Mindedness: Jordan B. Peterson’s Humility Behind the Mote—A Cautionary Tale

Jordan B. Peterson presents himself as a champion of free speech, intellectual rigor, and open inquiry. His rise as a public intellectual is, in part, due to his ability to engage in complex debates, challenge ideological extremes, and articulate a balance between chaos and order. However, beneath the surface of his engagement lies a pattern: an open-mindedness that appears flexible but ultimately functions as a defense mechanism—a “mote” guarding an impenetrable ideological fortress.

Peterson’s approach is both an asset and a cautionary tale, revealing the risks of appearing open-minded while remaining fundamentally resistant to true intellectual evolution.

The Illusion of Open-Mindedness: The Mote and the Fortress

In medieval castles, a mote was a watery trench meant to create the illusion of vulnerability while serving as a strong defensive barrier. Peterson, like many public intellectuals, operates in a similar way: he engages with critiques, acknowledges nuances, and even concedes minor points—but rarely, if ever, allows his core positions to be meaningfully challenged.

His approach can be broken down into two key areas:

The Mote (The Appearance of Openness)

    Engages with high-profile critics and thinkers (e.g., Sam Harris, Slavoj Žižek).

    Acknowledges complexity and the difficulty of absolute truth.

    Concedes minor details, appearing intellectually humble.

    Uses Socratic questioning to entertain alternative viewpoints.

The Fortress (The Core That Remains Unmoved)

    Selectively engages with opponents, often choosing weaker arguments rather than the strongest critiques.

    Frames ideological adversaries (e.g., postmodernists, Marxists) in ways that make them easier to dismiss.

    Uses complexity as a way to avoid definitive refutation (“It’s more complicated than that”).

    Rarely revises fundamental positions, even when new evidence is presented.

While this structure makes Peterson highly effective in debate, it also highlights a deeper issue: is he truly open to changing his views, or is he simply performing open-mindedness while ensuring his core remains untouched?

Examples of Strategic Open-Mindedness

1. Debating Sam Harris on Truth and Religion

In his discussions with Sam Harris, Peterson appeared to engage with the idea of multiple forms of truth—scientific truth versus pragmatic or narrative truth. He entertained Harris’s challenges, adjusted some definitions, and admitted certain complexities.

However, despite the lengthy back-and-forth, Peterson never fundamentally reconsidered his position on the necessity of religious structures for meaning. Instead, the debate functioned more as a prolonged intellectual sparring match, where the core disagreements remained intact despite the appearance of deep engagement.

2. The Slavoj Žižek Debate on Marxism

Peterson’s debate with Žižek was highly anticipated, particularly because Peterson had spent years criticizing Marxism and postmodernism. However, during the debate, it became clear that Peterson’s understanding of Marxist theory was relatively superficial—his arguments largely focused on The Communist Manifesto rather than engaging with the broader Marxist intellectual tradition.

Rather than adapting his critique in the face of Žižek’s counterpoints, Peterson largely held his ground, shifting the conversation toward general concerns about ideology rather than directly addressing Žižek’s challenges. This was a classic example of engaging in the mote—appearing open to debate while avoiding direct confrontation with deeper, more challenging ideas.

3. Gender, Biology, and Selective Science

Peterson frequently cites evolutionary psychology and biological determinism to argue for traditional gender roles and hierarchical structures. While many of his claims are rooted in scientific literature, critics have pointed out that he tends to selectively interpret data in ways that reinforce his worldview.

For example, he often discusses personality differences between men and women in highly gender-equal societies, citing studies that suggest biological factors play a role. However, he is far more skeptical of sociological explanations for gender disparities, often dismissing them outright. This asymmetry suggests a closed-mindedness when confronted with explanations that challenge his core beliefs.

The Cautionary Tale: When Intellectual Rigidity Masquerades as Openness

Peterson’s method—his strategic balance of open- and closed-mindedness—is not unique to him. Many public intellectuals use similar techniques, whether consciously or unconsciously. However, his case is particularly instructive because it highlights the risks of appearing too open-minded while remaining fundamentally immovable. The Risks of “Humility Behind the Mote”

Creates the Illusion of Growth Without Real Change

    By acknowledging complexity but refusing to revise core positions, one can maintain the illusion of intellectual evolution while actually reinforcing prior beliefs.

Reinforces Ideological Silos

    Peterson’s audience largely consists of those who already align with his worldview. His debates often serve to reaffirm his base rather than genuinely engage with alternative perspectives.

Undermines Genuine Inquiry

    If public intellectuals prioritize rhetorical victories over truth-seeking, the broader discourse suffers. Intellectual engagement becomes performative rather than transformative.

Encourages Polarization

    By appearing open while remaining rigid, thinkers like Peterson contribute to an intellectual landscape where ideological battle lines are drawn more firmly, rather than softened by genuine engagement.

Conclusion: The Responsibility of Public Intellectuals

Jordan B. Peterson is an undeniably influential thinker, and his emphasis on responsibility, order, and meaning resonates with many. However, his method of open-minded closed-mindedness serves as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates the power of intellectual posturing—how one can appear receptive while maintaining deep ideological resistance.

For true intellectual growth, one must be willing not only to entertain opposing views but to risk being changed by them. Without that willingness, even the most articulate and thoughtful engagement remains, at its core, a well-defended fortress.

So like I said, pure, evil AI slop, is evil, addictive and must be banned and lock up illegal gpu abusers and keep a gpu owners registry and keep track on those who would use them to abuse the shining light of our society, and who try to snuff them out like a bad level of luigi’s mansion

I agree with the output for legitimate reasons but it’s not black and white wrong or right. I think it’s wildly misjudged and while there plenty of valid reasons behind that I still think there is much to be had for what AI in general can do for us on a whole and individual basis.

Today I had it analyze 8 medical documents, told it to provide analysis, cross reference its output with scientific studies including sources, and other lengthy queries. These documents are dealing with bacterial colonies and multiple GI and bodily systems on a per document basis in great length. Some of the most advanced testing science offers.

It was able to not only provide me with accurate numbers that I fact checked from my documents side by side but explain methods to counter multi faceted systemic issues that matched multiple specialty Dr.s. Which is fairly impressive given to see a Dr takes 3 to 9 months or longer, who may or may not give a shit, over worked and understaffed, pick your reasoning.

While I tried having it scan from multiple fresh blank chat tabs and even different computers to really test it out for testing purposes.

Overall some of the numbers were off say 3 or 4 individual colony counts across all 8 documents. I corrected the values, told it that it was incorrect and to reasses giving it more time and ensuring accuracy, supplied a bit more context about how to understand the tables and I mean broad context such as page 6 shows gene expression use this as reference to find all underlying issues as it isnt a mind reader. It managed to fairly accurately identify the dysbiosis and other systemic issues with reasonable accuracy on par with physicians I have worked with. Dealing with antibiotic gene resistant analysis it was able to find multiple approaches to therapies to fight antibiotic gene resistant bacteria in a fraction of the time it would take for a human to study.

I would not bet my life solely on the responses as it’s far from perfected and as always with any info it should be cross referenced and fact checked through various sources. But those who speak such ill towards the usage while there is valid points I find unfounded. My 2 cents.

Not sure if sarcasm…

Gen Zs are TERRIBLE at searching things online in my experience. I’m a sweet spot millennial, born close to the middle in 1987. Man oh man watching the 22 year olds who work for me try to google things hurts my brain.

To be fair, the web has become flooded with AI slop. Search engines have never been more useless. I’ve started using kagi and I’m trying to be more intentional about it but after a bit of searching it’s often easier to just ask claude

I think, this is only a issue in the beginning, people will sooner or later realise that they can’t blindly trust an LMM output and how to create prompts to verify prompts (or better said prove that not enough relevant data was analysed and prove that it is hallucinations)

That doesn’t mean their critical thinking skills deteriorated. It means they used a tool that produces a certain outcome.

Dunning, meet Kruger

How else can the “elite” seperate themselces from the common folk? The elite loves writing 90% fluff and require high word counts in academia instead of actually making consise, clear, articulate articles that are easy to understand. You have to have a certain word count to qualify for “good writing” in any elite group. Look at Law, Political Science, History, Scientific Journals, etc. I had professor who would tell me they could easily find the information in the articles they needed and that one day we would be able to as well. That’s why ChatGPT spits out a shit ton of fluff.

Training those AIs was expensive. It swallowed very large sums of VC’s cash, and they will make it back.

Remember, their money is way more important than your life.