Its over. Joe Biden is stepping down

[Caveira]

On 8/1/2024 at 10:02 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

People who can become pregnant

Do you mean women ?

[mspart]

Who can't become pregnant?   Those with XY chromosomes.  

Who can become pregnant?   Those with XX chromosomes. 

According to science.

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Do you mean women ?

I mean people who can become pregnant. 

Does it anger you that I used that language? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

40 minutes ago, mspart said:

Who can't become pregnant?   Those with XY chromosomes.  

Who can become pregnant?   Those with XX chromosomes. 

According to science.

mspart

Why are you so scared about language and people wanting to be people? 

Just can't stand the fact that other people might be allowed to swim in your pool, huh? Otherizing is ugly. 

[Caveira]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I mean people who can become pregnant. 

Does it anger you that I used that language? 

Nope.  But they are all women.  All humans in human history were birthed by….. women.   

[mspart]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Why are you so scared about language and people wanting to be people? 

Just can't stand the fact that other people might be allowed to swim in your pool, huh? Otherizing is ugly. 

What did I say that was factually wrong?   You don't say.   You just say I am scared.   I am scared because I typed out facts?   So telling truth is now being scared?   That's just crazy.   No matter how hard a person that has XY chromosomes wants to, that person just can't get pregnant.   Is that me wanting people not to be people?  

Telling the scientific truth is no longer acceptable apparently.   What a ridiculous world this is when that is the case. 

mspart

[mspart]

52 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Nope.  But they are all women.  All humans in human history were birthed by….. women.   

You are a hater for saying so.   I said essentially the same thing and TPT thought he blasted me.   Too bad truth is on my side and his criticism makes him look silly. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

You are a hater for saying so.   I said essentially the same thing and TPT thought he blasted me.   Too bad truth is on my side and his criticism makes him look silly. 

mspart

It comes from their denial of God and their investment in playing one themselves. 

[RockLobster]

5 hours ago, Caveira said:

Nope.  But they are all women.  All humans in human history were birthed by….. women.   

Checked your post against current AI...

"Can male humans give birth?"

Quote

Yes
The answer to the question has a male human ever given birth is yes, but only for some men. These men are transgender or nonbinary people who have a uterus and ovaries that can carry a pregnancy 

Turns out you're wrong. AI says so.

[RockLobster]

4 hours ago, mspart said:

You are a hater for saying so.   I said essentially the same thing and TPT thought he blasted me.   Too bad truth is on my side and his criticism makes him look silly. 

mspart

... and now you look even sillier. AI is on my side. Male humans can give birth.

If you want to fight with AI - you go, girl.

Edited August 3 by RockLobster

[Bigbrog]

LOL @RockLobster..."AI said I am right"...did you actually read the full response??  Crack me up!!!  Then tell mspart "you go girl".  Man you are contradiction of complete crazy.

A biological male CAN NOT give birth...period.  That shouldn't be a controversial statement...no one should get offended by that.  No one is trying to oppress anyone by saying that.  No one is trying to minimize anyone by saying that.  And no one said a person is "bad" because they were born a male but feel like they are female and can't get pregnant.

Wonder how long it is before you get offended by someone saying something like storm clouds produce rain??

[Wrestleknownothing]

9 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Checked your post against current AI...

"Can male humans give birth?"

Turns out you're wrong. AI says so.

Never heard of hallucinations, I see. It is the cute name AI people have coined for "makes shit up".

[Scouts Honor]

On 8/1/2024 at 10:13 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

When did I ever specifically say that? 

Should parents listen to their children and try to understand them? Yes. 

Help them through their lives, transitioning them through myriad steps in their lives, growing up, learning, moving out? Yes. 

Could transitioning from the sex they were assigned at birth to a different one, sometimes? Yes, they should help their children live life as their authentic selves. If they don't they run the risk of passing down their generational trauma. If they are fine with that, there is nothing I or anyone else can do to them. Which includes taking their kids away.

That was a ridiculous thing to even suggest. That you skipped right to a hyperbolic example that isn't real is indicative of how you try to justify your opinion by creating fictitious enemies to combat and in so reinforce the validity of your own ideas.  Rather than consider that you could be wrong in actual reality. 

do you support gavin newsome? 

[Scouts Honor]

On 8/1/2024 at 11:44 PM, RockLobster said:

I've had my problems with you. But this is different... you are INCREDIBLY UNINFORMED AND STUPID HERE.

• It is NOT "one or the other" in roughly 1 in 1,500 births
• There are roughly 10,500 births in the US ever day.
• The math tells us roughly (7) kids are born each day that cannot be assigned a sex based on observation.

These kids have their own sets of problems.

I'd like to think uninformed people don't need to pile more problems on them. That's cruel and awful.

Why not just leave the kids alone to figure it out with their parents and loved ones.

Leave the kids alone.

i agree

leave the kids alone.

 

[Scouts Honor]

On 8/2/2024 at 12:07 AM, RockLobster said:

You were replying to my post. Mine was not a biological query, but a modern societal commentary.

And, yes, my post included a reference to someone who felt strongly that humans did, in fact, live solely to reproduce.

Here it is again in case you've forgotten.

In this day and age, the concept that women should be expected to be primarily "baby-making-machines" is completely unacceptable. 

Modern day cavemen that believe and promote the notion should be rebuked (yes, the current VP nominee for the R's)

do you speak for all women here?

and why is the modern day ideal better? 

just b/c it's 2024?

I don't think women should be confined to being baby making machines... but who am i to decide for someone

[Scouts Honor]

On 8/2/2024 at 8:28 AM, Bigbrog said:

Wow...how is saying there are two genders in any way shape or form hurting those kids that are born with an extremely rare genetic disorder??  Seriously...how does that hurt anyone???  No one is calling them "bad". 

Oh wait, it's coming from you who tries to find a way for either yourself or others to be a victim every single chance you get.  Must be hard living a life like that where you are always the victim.

it's like when the leftists try to insult you... by calling you gay..

 

[Scouts Honor]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:34 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

My apologies. Gender. Same question. 

lol

[Scouts Honor]

On 8/2/2024 at 3:13 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Why are you so scared about language and people wanting to be people? 

Just can't stand the fact that other people might be allowed to swim in your pool, huh? Otherizing is ugly. 

why are you so scared of science

[Scouts Honor]

20 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Checked your post against current AI...

"Can male humans give birth?"

Turns out you're wrong. AI says so.

wondering who programmed the AI

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

wondering who programmed the AI

A left leaning tech company.  But whoever used the term hallucinations is the correct term.  Some large language models try to guard against it… some don’t.  There are a gagillion of them now so it’s hard to keep up with which one hallucinates a lot vs not. 

[RockLobster]

15 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Never heard of hallucinations, I see. It is the cute name AI people have coined for "makes shit up".

I have.

And in the context of what "AI" (a term ridiculously too general) actually is - this term is poorly chosen.

Current "AI" consumes large amounts of data, process it, and regurgitates that data using language models.

The term is not equivalent to "makes shit up" at all. Note even close. 

It's primarily due to the integrity of the data that was processed - and in lesser part due to processing algorithms.

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 hours ago, RockLobster said:

I have.

And in the context of what "AI" (a term ridiculously too general) actually is - this term is poorly chosen.

Current "AI" consumes large amounts of data, process it, and regurgitates that data using language models.

The term is not equivalent to "makes shit up" at all. Note even close. 

It's primarily due to the integrity of the data that was processed - and in lesser part due to processing algorithms.

From Google's description of hallucinations:

"An example of this would be an AI model designed to generate summaries of news articles may produce a summary that includes details not present in the original article, or even fabricates information entirely."

Hmmm, sounds like makes shit up to me.

[RockLobster]

13 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

From Google's description of hallucinations:

"An example of this would be an AI model designed to generate summaries of news articles may produce a summary that includes details not present in the original article, or even fabricates information entirely."

Hmmm, sounds like makes shit up to me.

No - You're incorrect and misrepresenting that quote.

AI models do not 'fabricate information entirely'...that is misleading.

As I said earlier, "It's primarily due to the integrity of the data that was processed - and in lesser part due to processing algorithms"

Why are you attempting to mislead people? Why?

 

Here's the full Google quote you referenced - with full context, and the portion you posted in big bold so nobody misses it:

Quote

How do AI hallucinations occur?

AI models are trained on data, and they learn to make predictions by finding patterns in the data. However, the accuracy of these predictions often depends on the quality and completeness of the training data. If the training data is incomplete, biased, or otherwise flawed, the AI model may learn incorrect patterns, leading to inaccurate predictions or hallucinations.

For example, an AI model that is trained on a dataset of medical images may learn to identify cancer cells. However, if the dataset does not include any images of healthy tissue, the AI model may incorrectly predict that healthy tissue is cancerous. 

Flawed training data is just one reason why AI hallucinations can occur. Another factor that may contribute is a lack of proper grounding. An AI model may struggle to accurately understand real-world knowledge, physical properties, or factual information. This lack of grounding can cause the model to generate outputs that, while seemingly plausible, are actually factually incorrect, irrelevant, or nonsensical. This can even extend to fabricating links to web pages that never existed.

An example of this would be an AI model designed to generate summaries of news articles may produce a summary that includes details not present in the original article, or even fabricates information entirely. 

Understanding these potential causes of AI hallucinations is important for developers working with AI models. By carefully considering the quality and completeness of training data, as well as ensuring proper grounding, developers may minimize the risk of AI hallucinations and ensure the accuracy and reliability of their models.

[Scouts Honor]

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/2/2024 at 6:14 PM, Caveira said:

Nope.  But they are all women.  All humans in human history were birthed by….. women.   

Aren't they also people, who can become pregnant?

Your question would insinuate you prefer one to another. Both would be accurate. Why even bring it up?