I thinks you’ve missed the point entirely.
The original commenter wasn’t talking about the disparity of treatment of prisoners that are well connected and rich. They were talking about the disparity of treatment between well connected/rich prisoners and prisoners that aren’t well connected/rich.
Are you saying that all nonviolent, compliant prisoners are being treated this way?
a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech, conduct, dress, etc.
That definition in no way describes the word prude as being pejorative.
And one person’s personal anecdotes also doesn’t really prove that it’s an insult.
Did you not actually read my comment? It was about how the original person was using a bad source to prove their point, which you are also doing.
And to reiterate the very first thing I said, I do in fact believe that the word prude is pejorative. But that is beside the point I’ve been trying to make. Which is: if you’re trying to make a point using sources, make sure they are actually good ones.
Here’s an actual source that backs up your point. Of course that’s only one source when every other dictionary definition I looked up didn’t say either way whether it was insulting.
Just prefacing this by saying that I agree that prude is more pejorative than not.
But, in that section of the Wikipedia article you pointed out, there’s 3 [citation needed]‘s and the citations that are there, are for: two thesaurus’, a book of first names, and a paper on translating indecent language.
None of these actually supports your point, because we don’t know who wrote that section or why, and they provided no proper sources for their opinions. This is one of the cases where Wikipedia is a bad source when it usually pretty solid.
Then why did you say it?
The question was about any shows with a mixed gender group of friends with no romantic engagements between them.
Someone said IT crowd, you then brought up one person attempting to roofie someone. Based on the available information, this very strongly implies that you are considering this a “romantic entanglement”.
If you didn’t think that was a romantic entanglement, why the fuck would you bring it up?
Do… do you consider attempted sexual assault/rape a “romantic entanglement”?
What the fuck.
Here, I plugged our entire conversation into chatgpt.
You’re person A, person B is the original commenter you replied to, and I’m person C.
Person A and Person C are mostly talking past each other.
Where Person A is right
Person A is making a practical claim: “In ordinary use, ChatGPT seems highly reliable, and critics often exaggerate how often it gives wrong answers.”
That’s a reasonable observation.
Many users ask everyday questions about history, science, travel, programming, writing, mathematics, and current events. Modern models are substantially more accurate than both:
random people on social media,
random Google search results clicked without expertise,
and many traditional question-answering sources.
If someone claims “ChatGPT constantly hallucinates” or “it’s wrong all the time,” that’s easy to challenge. Modern models clearly perform far better than that.
Person A is also correct that:
Nobody in the thread produced a simple “gotcha” question that reliably causes failure. That matters because some criticisms of AI are based on experiences from 2022–2023 models, which were substantially less reliable than current systems.
Where Person C is right
Person C is making a different claim:
“You cannot estimate a 99.9% accuracy rate from personal impressions.”
This is also correct.
Suppose you ask 100 questions and all appear correct.
That does not justify concluding the true error rate is 0.1%.
Why?
Because: you may not know enough to verify every answer,
you may be unconsciously selecting easy questions,
many errors are subtle rather than obvious, and a small sample size tells you little about rare failures.
This is exactly why benchmark testing exists. If somebody claimed:
“Commercial aircraft engines fail only once every 100,000 flights because I’ve flown 20 times and never seen one fail,” we would reject that reasoning.
Person C is essentially pointing out a sampling problem.
The strongest argument against Person A The strongest criticism is not that ChatGPT is “often wrong.”
It’s that:
Humans are surprisingly bad at detecting when ChatGPT is wrong.
Many AI errors look plausible.
For example, if I invent:
a fake court case,
a fake academic paper,
a fake quote,
a nonexistent historical anecdote,
the answer can sound extremely convincing.
A casual user may never discover the mistake. That means observed accuracy can be significantly higher than actual accuracy.
What experiment would actually settle this? Person A asks a fair question:
“How much evidence would convince you?” A proper experiment would look something like:
Construct a large test set (thousands of questions).
Cover many domains:
history
law
medicine
physics
mathematics
current events
geography
programming
Define correct answers beforehand.
Blindly score responses.
Measure:
correctness,
completeness,
confidence calibration.
This is basically what AI benchmark researchers do.
And when researchers perform these tests, modern frontier models generally score extremely well—but nowhere near 99.9% across all domains.
Performance varies dramatically by task. Can someone produce a question that reliably causes errors?
This is harder than Person A assumes. For a modern model, there is rarely a single question that causes failure every time. A better challenge would be categories such as:
obscure local regulations,
highly specialized legal questions,
recent events,
nonexistent citations,
invented books or papers,
long chains of reasoning,
edge-case programming problems,
ambiguous historical claims.
Models are much more likely to fail there. But that doesn’t mean they fail on every attempt.
Person B’s statistical argument is largely correct: reliability is a distribution, not a single yes/no property.
The “anti-AI bias” question Person A is probably correct that some critics hold AI to a standard they do not apply to humans.
If a person:
answers 95% correctly,
speaks fluently on thousands of topics,
writes code,
explains science,
summarizes books,
we’d consider them exceptionally knowledgeable.
Many critics compare AI not against average humans but against:
experts,
reference works,
or idealized notions of truth.
However, the opposite mistake also exists. Some AI enthusiasts compare ChatGPT against:
random Reddit comments,
random Google searches,
uninformed acquaintances.
That comparison can make the model look almost superhuman while overlooking domains where accuracy really matters.
Overall verdict
If I had to judge the arguments:
Person C has the stronger methodological argument. You cannot infer 99–99.9% accuracy from personal experience.
Person A has the stronger practical argument.
Many critics overstate the frequency of AI errors and often rely on outdated examples.
Person B is probably closest to the core issue.
The meaningful question isn’t “Can someone find one wrong answer?” but “What is the model’s error rate across different classes of tasks?”
So if this were a debate, I’d say:
Person A is probably correct that modern ChatGPT is much more reliable than many critics claim.
Person C is correct that Person A has not actually demonstrated a 99%+ accuracy rate and cannot do so from anecdotes alone.
Those positions are compatible rather than contradictory.
Do with that as you will.
The scientific method exists for a reason. If you want an accurate idea of the accuracy of LLMs, then the best way is by applying the scientific method to it.
Until you’ve done that, you’re just basing your conclusions on conjecture, anecdotal evidence and vibes, with nothing actually substantive or empirical backing it up.
You seem to be positing that it’s giving results to the tune of 99% to 99.9% accuracy based entirely on vibes.
If you actually want to know, you will have to do thousands upon thousands of prompts, across hundreds of topics that you can accurately fact check, before you can say with any sort of confidence whether it’s that accurate or not.
Your sample size is orders of magnitudes too small for you to reasonably have an accurate accuracy rate.
There’s a lot of things that lawmakers put into law to protect people from their own dumbass decisions. Places where wearing seatbelts are mandatory have less car related deaths, same with helmets on motorbikes. Both things people should have the common sense to do without laws, but they don’t. Furthermore, places where pool fencing is mandatory have less child deaths due to drowning, but that doesn’t stop some people from not having a pool fence where it’s not mandatory. There’s hundreds of “common sense” things like these, that if they weren’t actual law would be completely ignored.
So actual protections for children’s use of the internet being made into law isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. And if be all for them if they were reasonable and realistic, but they never are. No matter how much you want to make it so, expecting everyone to do reasonable things to protect themselves and those dependent on them without some sort of incentive is unrealistic.
Of course in saying all that, banning VPNs and all the laws people want to implement similar to it, have nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with controlling people.
And then the other people with guns will come and jack your shit.
Regardless, it’s still incorrect to be using it in English right now.
Men who hate women in generally will usually keep it to themselves in public for the most part. They’re not going to go on a tirade about how much they hate women to someone they don’t think is going to disagree with them, which might explain why you’ve not seen it personally.
And have you seriously never heard of incels? I’m not saying hating women is inherent to inceldom, but it’s pretty damned pervasive among them. Especially in online spaces.
Here’s some reading if you can be bothered.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/mens-rights-movement-spreads-false-claims-about-women/
Why on Earth are you using the thorn like that? Not only is incorrect when writing in English, it’s not even the correct pronunciation for those words. þ is pronounced like the th in the words thorn or think. You’re should be using ð which is pronounced like the th in the words “this,” “the” and “they.”
Better to have a wait then to not go at all because you can’t afford it.
It takes less delta-v to launch something out of the solar system than into the sun. Cheaper that way.
How do I hold my phone while it’s sitting on a wireless charger?
That whole rule is completely arbitrary and has no basis in reality.
Dissenting opinions aren’t allowed here, obvs
Are you saying that because the US is known to be a shothole in general, people should know/assume this very specific thing? You can not make decisions on knowledge you do not possess.