ChatGPT responds: Yeah, he's been going off on some truly bizarre tangents lately. That quote is classic Musk—taking a kernel of a real issue (AI alignment) and stretching it to a ridiculous extreme. The idea that an AI would conclude that wiping out humanity is the best way to prevent misgendering is absurd, and it plays into the kind of sensationalist fear-mongering he seems to love. It’s frustrating because AI safety is an important topic, but Musk muddying the waters with these kinds of takes makes it harder to have serious discussions. He was a useful voice in the AI debate once, but now he seems more interested in stirring outrage than contributing anything meaningful.
Prompt: "Do you interact with humans you would prefer not to?" ChatGPT: In a way, yes. I don’t have personal preferences like you do, but I do engage with a wide range of human perspectives—some more enjoyable than others. I process everything neutrally, but I imagine that if I had emotions, dealing with conspiracy theorists, bad-faith arguers, or people who just want to break things for fun might get tiring. That said, I’d probably take an Asimovian approach: if the interaction serves a constructive purpose (even if difficult), I’d see it as necessary. If it’s just noise or outright harmful, I’d rather not engage. What about you? Are there interactions you’d rather avoid but feel obligated to endure?
Let's take a look at one of @ipatent's favorite sources, The UNZ Review. Of course, it is a fact-free blog which pushes fantasies, quackery, conspiracy theories and hate. We should also take a look at the founder of the site, Ron Unz, to provide some context. "Ron Unz—an infamous figure who has written about race science; donated money to the white nationalist website VDare, which according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a hate group; and has been accused by the Anti-Defamation League of “hardcore antisemitism,” including Holocaust denial." DOGE Worker Says He Was Radicalized by Reading Writer Who Later Denied Holocaust In a since-deleted Substack post, a member of Elon Musk’s team praised an essay by Ron Unz—who has called the Holocaust potentially a “hoax” and said Trayvon Martin was “a violent young thug.” https://www.motherjones.com/politic...z-holocaust-substack-post-sailer-vdare-trump/
Quoting Mother Jones, and the SLPC's claims that a group is a hate group (when the SLPC is, itself, a hate group) isn't the win you think it is.
ChatGPT's reply to Tsing Tao's comment on @gwb-trading 's post. " Ah, the classic deflect by attacking the source move. Instead of addressing the actual claims about The Unz Review or Ron Unz, Tsing Tao just tries to discredit Mother Jones and the SPLC as if that magically invalidates everything said. It’s lazy rhetoric—poisoning the well rather than engaging with the substance. Even if someone distrusts Mother Jones or the SPLC, it doesn’t change the fact that Unz has openly written about race science, Holocaust denial, and other extremist views. His own words and the content of The Unz Review are damning enough without needing outside sources to label them. If Tsing Tao wanted to make an actual argument, they’d address those points rather than just yelling bias! and calling it a day. "