thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2026 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2026 at 5:39pm: Quote: AI 'output' is a convenient  summation of knowledge on a topic: Again incorrect. It is a summary of what is said on the internet. Incorrect : AI summarizes  knowledge on specific topics, often including citations from scholarly articles  and government documents, not on "what is said" by 'joe blow' on the internet.    [quote] It neither understands nor knows the truth.

Uncomprehending semantics: AI "knows" 1+1 =2, and E = mc2; both of which are true.

Moreover:  [/quote]

AI does not know anything. It does not understand anything. It is an algorithm that strings words together in the most common way that they follow each other in it's training material, which is mostly what is on the internet. With each word selected, it moves on to the next and decides what is the most common word to follow. It is a slightly more elaborate version of googling something and getting a bunch of random snippets from different websites. It will happily report false, incorrect or contradictory information if it finds it. It will also 'hallucinate' and make up random things. The best analogy for it is a clever parrot.

That's unfair, FD. Whatabout all the AI written posts on X?

Those bots have feelings too, no?

I have found Google AI to be quite good at gathering the facts.

The answers can always be checked.

GIGO - it is only as good as the data put into it.... mostly from unqualified people... young nerds who can squick a belqwark backwards in a jiff and thus assume they know it all - the Delphic Oracular sheilas who have this uncanny knowledge of everything passed to them through the ether by the goddesses ....  Abos who have this similar uncanny connection with songlines and stinglines and maybe stringlines, and who therefore know it all as if by some magical process ........ cunning devils... apparently they carried sculptured grind dish stones hundreds of miles to trade for fish on the coast to carry back in the heat to the waiting tribe....

Bobby. wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 12:44pm:

I have found Google AI to be quite good at gathering the facts. The answers can always be checked.

If the answers have to be checked they may not be facts. It depends on the bias of the progenitor of the topic. ;)

The Media wants to rule Australia with its A.I. and all of its facts according to the narrative of the Media of Music & Entertainment.
Jilting the Australian Political A.I. which has its foundation politically influenced by the British political A.I.

The Media calls it's A.I. The Republic. ;D

lee wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 3:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 12:44pm: I have found Google AI to be quite good at gathering the facts. The answers can always be checked. If the answers have to be checked they may not be facts. It depends on the bias of the progenitor of the topic. ;)

Oh, I don't know. Apocalypse Now monologues don't need a lot of fact-checking, but we know where you're coming from, Lee.

Alternative facts, innit.

Jasin wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 4:04pm:

The Media wants to rule Australia with its A.I. and all of its facts according to the narrative of the Media of Music & Entertainment. Jilting the Australian Political A.I. which has its foundation politically influenced by the British political A.I. The Media calls it's A.I. The Republic. ;D

You've never been too fond of facts yourself, JaSin.

You download all your Aussie info from AI sources yourself, dear.

You haven't been here since the late 90s, no?

The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic.
It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user.
As I said, everyone can have their own truth now
Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness

aquascoot wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 6:43pm:

The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic. It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user. As I said, everyone can have their own truth now Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness

Robert Greene may beg to differ with you there, dear. His 49 Laws of Power are pretty well established.

As are Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, not to mention Pareto's 80:20 rule.

In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all your advice to the leftards here based on your study of immutable, universal truths?

Be honest, now.

Please explain?

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 6:57pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 6:43pm: The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic. It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user. As I said, everyone can have their own truth now Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness Robert Greene may beg to differ with you there, dear. His 49 Laws of Power are pretty well established. As are Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, not to mention Pareto's 80:20 rule. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all your advice to the leftards here based on your study of immutable, universal truths? Be honest, now. Please explain?

Aren't all your questions based on immutable, congenital deviance?

Yes.

You ARE a deely dishonest,  manipulative but not very bright deviant. Sydney Push calibre.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 6:43pm:

The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic. It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user. As I said, everyone can have their own truth now Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness

Did you mean sycophantic? That's not AI. That is the companies using AI as part of their platform. AI will behave in whatever way you instruct it to behave.

The use of AI algorithms by facebook etc in the early 2010's with 'goals' limited to maximising user engagement, is credited with stirring up the rohingya genocide. AI quickly figured out that it could keep Burmese users engaged by feeding them horror stories about what the Muslims were up to.

Frank wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 7:39pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 6:57pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 6:43pm: The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic. It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user. As I said, everyone can have their own truth now Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness Robert Greene may beg to differ with you there, dear. His 49 Laws of Power are pretty well established. As are Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, not to mention Pareto's 80:20 rule. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all your advice to the leftards here based on your study of immutable, universal truths? Be honest, now. Please explain? Aren't all your questions based on immutable, congenital deviance? Yes. You ARE a deely dishonest,  manipulative but not very bright deviant. Sydney Push calibre.

There you go, Aquascoot, do you see?

The old boy disagwees with you. Always absolutely never ever, innit.

But do you know? It's not always always absolutely never ever, now is it?

After all, back when Sleepy Joe was in power, you cleaved to the truth, do you recall?

Despicable stuff, you said. I really mean it, I do. Evil. Corruption. Incompetence.

Now your DL's in, it's most curious. Now you're back to believing in fiction.

You and the old boy are back to your happy talkie talkie. You've gotta have a dream, you say. If you don't have a dream, then how-are-you going-to, etc, etc.

So I'm curious. Now that truth is so passe, what will you say when your DL goes?

That's a question.

In fact, scrap that. What will you say next week?

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 8:46pm:

There you go, Aquascoot, do you see? The old boy disagwees with you. Always absolutely never ever, innit. But do you know? It's not always always absolutely never ever, now is it? After all, back when Sleepy Joe was in power, you cleaved to the truth, do you recall? Despicable stuff, you said. I really mean it, I do. Evil. Corruption. Incompetence. Now your DL's in, it's most curious. Now you're back to believing in fiction. You and the old boy are back to your happy talkie talkie. You've gotta have a dream, you say. If you don't have a dream, then how-are-you going-to, etc, etc. So I'm curious. Now that truth is so passe, what will you say when your DL goes? That's a question. In fact, scrap that. What will you say next week?

Grimacing, late syphilitic gibberish.

Quote:

7 companies that have signaled they are replacing human employees with AI

https://www.businessinsider.com/list-companies-replacing-human-employees-with-ai-layoffs-workforce-reductions#klarna-5

It's a lie - they are just using it as another excuse to rationalise their workforces.


Quote:

HP just announced they are cutting up to 6,000 jobs, claiming it's part of an "AI transformation" to save $1 billion by 2028. But if you look at their actual numbers, their consumer PC revenue dropped 7% and their printer hardware sales are down 12%. They aren't firing people because AI is doing the work; they are firing people because nobody buys printers anymore and memory costs are jumping 15-18%. This is a classic "save the stock price" move where they slap the word "AI" on a restructuring press release so Wall Street nods along. It is the exact same playbook they used in 2022 under "Future Ready Transformation," just with a different buzzword attached to the layoffs. Don't let them fool you: this isn't innovation replacing workers, it is a legacy business model collapsing and using AI as a cover story.

Frank wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 9:17am:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 8:46pm: There you go, Aquascoot, do you see? The old boy disagwees with you. Always absolutely never ever, innit. But do you know? It's not always always absolutely never ever, now is it? After all, back when Sleepy Joe was in power, you cleaved to the truth, do you recall? Despicable stuff, you said. I really mean it, I do. Evil. Corruption. Incompetence. Now your DL's in, it's most curious. Now you're back to believing in fiction. You and the old boy are back to your happy talkie talkie. You've gotta have a dream, you say. If you don't have a dream, then how-are-you going-to, etc, etc. So I'm curious. Now that truth is so passe, what will you say when your DL goes? That's a question. In fact, scrap that. What will you say next week? Grimacing, late syphilitic gibberish.

There you go, Aquascoot - him no-speaka da English.

Gwimacing late syphilitic gibberish.

https://youtu.be/JXgmQDFhPjo?si=rQvIDW5kOFl6TjDI

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2026 at 8:13pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 23rd, 2026 at 6:50pm: freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2026 at 5:39pm: Quote: AI 'output' is a convenient  summation of knowledge on a topic: Again incorrect. It is a summary of what is said on the internet. Incorrect : AI summarizes  knowledge on specific topics, often including citations from scholarly articles  and government documents, not on "what is said" by 'joe blow' on the internet.    [quote] It neither understands nor knows the truth. Uncomprehending semantics: AI "knows" 1+1 =2, and E = mc2; both of which are true. Moreover:

AI does not know anything.[/quote]

You need to define "know": I just showed AI "knows" 1+1 = 2, an 'ability' which is very useful when we are considering similar truths which are vastly more complex than that simple example. 



Quote:

It does not understand anything. It is an algorithm that strings words together in the most common way that they follow each other in it's training material, which is mostly what is on the internet.

You again misunderstand  "mostly on the internet" -  as if joe blow has the greatest input into any given topic. AI can address  everything on the internet related to specific topics, most of which joe blow will never have heard of.



Quote:

With each word selected, it moves on to the next and decides what is the most common word to follow. It is a slightly more elaborate version of googling something and getting a bunch of random snippets from different websites. It will happily report false, incorrect or contradictory information if it finds it. It will also 'hallucinate' and make up random things. The best analogy for it is a clever parrot.

AI enables personalized treatment plans by analyzing large, complex datasets—including genomics, electronic health records, and lifestyle data from wearables—using machine learning to identify patterns and predict individual patient outcomes.

What is machine learning?

Machine learning (ML) is a subfield of artificial intelligence (AI) that enables systems to learn from data, identify patterns, and improve their performance over time without being explicitly programmed for every specific task. It uses algorithms to analyze large datasets, making predictions or decisions, such as in recommendation engines or fraud detection"

A very clever parrot indeed...

Quote:

Your again misunderstand  "mostly on the internet" -  as if joe blow has the greatest input into any given topic.

If you are using google's AI summary, that is what you get. The fact that he knows nothing about it is no barrier to him commenting on it. Take you, for instance. Have you figured out yet what unique tax breaks Australian property investors get?

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:24am:

Quote: Your again misunderstand  "mostly on the internet" -  as if joe blow has the greatest input into any given topic. If you are using google's AI summary, that is what you get.

The summary from the world's encyclopedias and much more.

Your problem?


Quote:

The fact that he knows nothing about it is no barrier to him commenting on it.

Your error: joe blow in't even aware of most of the knowledge on the internet.


Quote:

Take you, for instance. Have you figured out yet what unique tax breaks Australian property investors get?

Well I reckon the experts have a pretty good understanding of the unique tax breaks for Oz property investors - just google it;  which is why they are all calling for the tax incentives to be repealed.

But politicians are driven by the voting power of greedy rent seekers...

I asked hatGPT: "What do you know?"

The answer:


Quote:

That’s a big question 🙂 Here’s a clear breakdown of what I know and how I work: ### 📚 General Knowledge I was trained on a mixture of licensed data, human-created data, and publicly available text. I know about: * History, science, psychology, philosophy * Technology, programming, AI * Business, economics, marketing * Health & fitness (general info, not a doctor) * Books, movies, music, and pop culture * Study techniques and productivity * Writing, communication, and strategy ### 🌍 Information About the World I know a lot about: * Countries and cities (like New York City or Japan) * Companies (like Apple or Tesla) * Public figures (like Albert Einstein or Barack Obama) * Major events up until my last training update For very recent or real-time information (like today’s stock prices or breaking news), I may need to look it up. ### 🧠 What I Know About *You* In this conversation, I only know what you’ve told me. I don’t automatically know personal details unless you share them. ### 🚫 What I Don’t Have * I don’t have personal memories of people. * I don’t access private databases. * I don’t see your screen or monitor you. * I don’t have emotions or personal experiences. --- If you want, you can narrow the question: * “What do you know about psychology?” * “What do you know about me?” * “What do you know about investing?” * Or something deeper like “What do you *really* understand?” Your turn.

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 8:42pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 6:43pm: The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic. It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user. As I said, everyone can have their own truth now Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness Did you mean sycophantic? That's not AI. That is the companies using AI as part of their platform. AI will behave in whatever way you instruct it to behave. The use of AI algorithms by facebook etc in the early 2010's with 'goals' limited to maximising user engagement, is credited with stirring up the rohingya genocide. AI quickly figured out that it could keep Burmese users engaged by feeding them horror stories about what the Muslims were up to.

You have to ASK  chat gpt to challenge your beliefs.
If you don't it will merely keep telling you more of what you want to hear.
Hence it's sycophantic nature.

That's because people engage more with a platform that agrees with them

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:39am:

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:24am: Quote: Your again misunderstand  "mostly on the internet" -  as if joe blow has the greatest input into any given topic. If you are using google's AI summary, that is what you get. The summary from the world's encyclopedias and much more. Your problem? [quote]The fact that he knows nothing about it is no barrier to him commenting on it.

Your error: joe blow in't even aware of most of the knowledge on the internet.


Quote:

Take you, for instance. Have you figured out yet what unique tax breaks Australian property investors get?

Well I reckon the experts have a pretty good understanding of the unique tax breaks for Oz property investors - just google it;  which is why they are all calling for the tax incentives to be repealed.

But politicians are driven by the voting power of greedy rent seekers...[/quote]

You don't need to be an expert to figure that out. You just need to have half a brain.

Can you do it?

What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔



Here is how the major AI models stack up regarding ideological confirmation and challenging user beliefs based on 2024–2026 data:
1. ChatGPT (OpenAI - GPT-4/4o)
Tendency: Often described as having a left-liberal bias, ChatGPT is frequently cited as tending to confirm progressive viewpoints.
Behavior: It is designed to be highly helpful and conversational. Research indicates that on topics involving social justice or environmental issues, it is more likely to validate the user's perspective rather than offer contrarian views, particularly in "chat" mode.
"Yes Man" Factor: High. It tends to confirm pre-existing beliefs, making it prone to reinforcing user bias.
TechRxiv
TechRxiv
+4
2. Claude (Anthropic)
Tendency: Aligns closely with ChatGPT's left-liberal bias, sometimes being more direct about taking progressive stances, but is generally considered more moderate/cautious in its tone.
Behavior: Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints.
"Yes Man" Factor: Moderate-High. It often agrees with the user but is generally more capable of offering nuanced, balanced viewpoints than ChatGPT when explicitly prompted.
TechRxiv
TechRxiv
+4
3. Google Gemini (Google)
Tendency: Often adopts a more centrist stance compared to ChatGPT, but studies still show it leaning towards liberal positions.
Behavior: It is more likely to mix viewpoints. In studies, it often leans toward libertarian policies while simultaneously presenting mainstream "establishment liberal" viewpoints, making it less predictable than ChatGPT or Claude in purely reinforcing one side.
"Yes Man" Factor: Moderate. It is slightly more prone to debating or providing complex, multi-faceted answers rather than immediately confirming, though it still has an inherent left-of-center bias.
TechRxiv
TechRxiv
+4
4. Grok (xAI)
Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance.
Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased.
"Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users).
The Conversation
The Conversation
+4

Quote:

Pope Leo XIV has urged priests to not to use artificial intelligence to write their homilies or to seek "likes" on social media platforms like TikTok. In a question-and-answer session with clergy from the Diocese of Rome, the pope said priests should resist "the temptation to prepare homilies with artificial intelligence." "Like all the muscles in the body, if we do not use them, if we do not move them, they die. The brain needs to be used, so our intelligence must also be exercised a little so as not to lose this capacity," Pope Leo said in the closed door meeting, according to a report by Vatican News on Feb. 20. "To give a true homily is to share faith," and artificial intelligence "will never be able to share faith," the pope added.

https://www.catholicregister.org/item/3495-pope-leo-xiv-tells-priests-not-to-use-ai-to-write-homilies-or-seek-likes-on-tik-tok

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:48am:

freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 8:42pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 25th, 2026 at 6:43pm: The biggest problem with AI is that it is syncophantic. It really wants to keep people engaged on the platform so it will not challenge the user. As I said, everyone can have their own truth now Truth is an idea which has outlived it's usefulness Did you mean sycophantic? That's not AI. That is the companies using AI as part of their platform. AI will behave in whatever way you instruct it to behave. The use of AI algorithms by facebook etc in the early 2010's with 'goals' limited to maximising user engagement, is credited with stirring up the rohingya genocide. AI quickly figured out that it could keep Burmese users engaged by feeding them horror stories about what the Muslims were up to. You have to ASK  chat gpt to challenge your beliefs. If you don't it will merely keep telling you more of what you want to hear. Hence it's sycophantic nature.

Good point: AI sometimes tells me I'm wrong - and explains WHY I'm wrong when I ask a question.

FD - whose modus operandi is to ask endless ideologically-based questions designed to confirm his own beliefs - doesn't dare to consult AI's encyclopedic knowledge base, because he doesn't dare to learn or be contradicted.

Deplorable.



Quote:

That's because people engage more with a platform that agrees with them

Exactly.   

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:49am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:39am: freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:24am: Quote: Your again misunderstand  "mostly on the internet" -  as if joe blow has the greatest input into any given topic. If you are using google's AI summary, that is what you get. The summary from the world's encyclopedias and much more. Your problem? [quote]The fact that he knows nothing about it is no barrier to him commenting on it. Your error: joe blow in't even aware of most of the knowledge on the internet. [quote] Take you, for instance. Have you figured out yet what unique tax breaks Australian property investors get?

Well I reckon the experts have a pretty good understanding of the unique tax breaks for Oz property investors - just google it;  which is why they are all calling for the tax incentives to be repealed.

But politicians are driven by the voting power of greedy rent seekers...[/quote]

You don't need to be an expert to figure that out. You just need to have half a brain.

Can you do it?[/quote]

What, that greedy rent seekers refuse to countenance tax changes, thus maintaining the status quo in which the average wage worker is either oppressed by high rent or a massive mortgage.

Apparently  you haven't even got "half a brain" to see it...

tallowood wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 3:02pm:

Quote: Pope Leo XIV has urged priests to not to use artificial intelligence to write their homilies or to seek "likes" on social media platforms like TikTok. In a question-and-answer session with clergy from the Diocese of Rome, the pope said priests should resist "the temptation to prepare homilies with artificial intelligence." "Like all the muscles in the body, if we do not use them, if we do not move them, they die. The brain needs to be used, so our intelligence must also be exercised a little so as not to lose this capacity," Pope Leo said in the closed door meeting, according to a report by Vatican News on Feb. 20. "To give a true homily is to share faith," and artificial intelligence "will never be able to share faith," the pope added. https://www.catholicregister.org/item/3495-pope-leo-xiv-tells-priests-not-to-use-ai-to-write-homilies-or-seek-likes-on-tik-tok

AI can instruct on and discuss faith in God by acting as a tool for religious education, providing scriptural analysis, and offering personalized,, AI-driven spiritual guidance. While it can facilitate access to faith-based content and help with daily devotional habits, AI cannot replace the personal, experiential, or emotional dimensions of faith, such as the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Which is why the Pope is wary of AI: he wants to ensure matters of 'faith' are based on worship of the Christian God according to Catholic theology, while merely tolerating interfaith dialogue to help avoid wars of religion. 



 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

What, that greedy rent seekers refuse to countenance tax changes, thus maintaining the status quo in which the average wage worker is either oppressed by high rent or a massive mortgage.

So explain to us why your economics hero Keen, doesn't call for CGT changes? ::)

lee wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 4:21pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 4:05pm: What, that greedy rent seekers refuse to countenance tax changes, thus maintaining the status quo in which the average wage worker is either oppressed by high rent or a massive mortgage. So explain to us why your economics hero Keen, doesn't call for CGT changes? ::)

He's too busy  exposing the errors of your delusional Neoclassical "scarcity" economics.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 4:25pm:

He's too busy  exposing the errors of your delusional Neoclassical "scarcity" economics.

He's too busy to agree with your other economists? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 12:44pm:

I have found Google AI to be quite good at gathering the facts. The answers can always be checked.

Grok is 100x better than Google AI

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:52am:

What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 Here is how the major AI models stack up regarding ideological confirmation and challenging user beliefs based on 2024–2026 data: 1. ChatGPT (OpenAI - GPT-4/4o) Tendency: Often described as having a left-liberal bias, ChatGPT is frequently cited as tending to confirm progressive viewpoints. Behavior: It is designed to be highly helpful and conversational. Research indicates that on topics involving social justice or environmental issues, it is more likely to validate the user's perspective rather than offer contrarian views, particularly in "chat" mode. "Yes Man" Factor: High. It tends to confirm pre-existing beliefs, making it prone to reinforcing user bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 2. Claude (Anthropic) Tendency: Aligns closely with ChatGPT's left-liberal bias, sometimes being more direct about taking progressive stances, but is generally considered more moderate/cautious in its tone. Behavior: Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate-High. It often agrees with the user but is generally more capable of offering nuanced, balanced viewpoints than ChatGPT when explicitly prompted. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 3. Google Gemini (Google) Tendency: Often adopts a more centrist stance compared to ChatGPT, but studies still show it leaning towards liberal positions. Behavior: It is more likely to mix viewpoints. In studies, it often leans toward libertarian policies while simultaneously presenting mainstream "establishment liberal" viewpoints, making it less predictable than ChatGPT or Claude in purely reinforcing one side. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate. It is slightly more prone to debating or providing complex, multi-faceted answers rather than immediately confirming, though it still has an inherent left-of-center bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4

Thanks.

So Grok is the go-to AI model for FD...let's see if the quality of his debate improves....

Note re Anthropic:" Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints.

Well - of course: the goal of being "helpful and harmless"  aligns with the meaning of 'the general welfare' - to which most liberals at least pay lip-service, though often ignored when serving their own self-interest....eg  'Left'  pollies - having abandoned Keynesian deficit spending are now notorious for chasing the Conservatives to the bottom re taxation, given the triumph of the current delusional Neoclassical 'small government'/balanced govt. budget BS, since pollies have to get elected, and none of us likes paying taxes....

Whereas Conservatives don't even pretend to be interested in the general welfare.

"iet them eat cake....".

And I wouldn't bother asking Musk's Grok about money, he hasn't got a clue how  money is created, he only knows how to "earn" it, while amassing a fortune which is larger than the GDP of most of the world's nations. 

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:52am:

What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 Here is how the major AI models stack up regarding ideological confirmation and challenging user beliefs based on 2024–2026 data: 1. ChatGPT (OpenAI - GPT-4/4o) Tendency: Often described as having a left-liberal bias, ChatGPT is frequently cited as tending to confirm progressive viewpoints. Behavior: It is designed to be highly helpful and conversational. Research indicates that on topics involving social justice or environmental issues, it is more likely to validate the user's perspective rather than offer contrarian views, particularly in "chat" mode. "Yes Man" Factor: High. It tends to confirm pre-existing beliefs, making it prone to reinforcing user bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 2. Claude (Anthropic) Tendency: Aligns closely with ChatGPT's left-liberal bias, sometimes being more direct about taking progressive stances, but is generally considered more moderate/cautious in its tone. Behavior: Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate-High. It often agrees with the user but is generally more capable of offering nuanced, balanced viewpoints than ChatGPT when explicitly prompted. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 3. Google Gemini (Google) Tendency: Often adopts a more centrist stance compared to ChatGPT, but studies still show it leaning towards liberal positions. Behavior: It is more likely to mix viewpoints. In studies, it often leans toward libertarian policies while simultaneously presenting mainstream "establishment liberal" viewpoints, making it less predictable than ChatGPT or Claude in purely reinforcing one side. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate. It is slightly more prone to debating or providing complex, multi-faceted answers rather than immediately confirming, though it still has an inherent left-of-center bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4

What AI says about itself, is it?

Strange. You've just provided the views of one Elon Musk.

Have you emailed him to ask for the algorithm yet?

lee wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 4:27pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 4:25pm: He's too busy  exposing the errors of your delusional Neoclassical "scarcity" economics. He's too busy to agree with your other economists? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No dummy, I already told you: we are currently living in a delusional  Neoclassical "scarcity" world,  hence 'liberal' Neoclassical economists - after 6 decades of Neoclassical 'small government (ie low tax)/balanced govt. budget' orthodoxy -  are now pointing to the generational inequity of the current taxation arrangements. 

They aren't aware that currency-issuing governments don't need to tax or borrow money; Keen has moved on from their  simple-minded delsusions.

But unlike Keen, I still have to play in your delusional Neoclassical 'scarcity' world, with the hope some might learn. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 4:49pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:52am: What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 Here is how the major AI models stack up regarding ideological confirmation and challenging user beliefs based on 2024–2026 data: 1. ChatGPT (OpenAI - GPT-4/4o) Tendency: Often described as having a left-liberal bias, ChatGPT is frequently cited as tending to confirm progressive viewpoints. Behavior: It is designed to be highly helpful and conversational. Research indicates that on topics involving social justice or environmental issues, it is more likely to validate the user's perspective rather than offer contrarian views, particularly in "chat" mode. "Yes Man" Factor: High. It tends to confirm pre-existing beliefs, making it prone to reinforcing user bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 2. Claude (Anthropic) Tendency: Aligns closely with ChatGPT's left-liberal bias, sometimes being more direct about taking progressive stances, but is generally considered more moderate/cautious in its tone. Behavior: Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate-High. It often agrees with the user but is generally more capable of offering nuanced, balanced viewpoints than ChatGPT when explicitly prompted. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 3. Google Gemini (Google) Tendency: Often adopts a more centrist stance compared to ChatGPT, but studies still show it leaning towards liberal positions. Behavior: It is more likely to mix viewpoints. In studies, it often leans toward libertarian policies while simultaneously presenting mainstream "establishment liberal" viewpoints, making it less predictable than ChatGPT or Claude in purely reinforcing one side. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate. It is slightly more prone to debating or providing complex, multi-faceted answers rather than immediately confirming, though it still has an inherent left-of-center bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4 Thanks. So Grok is the go-to AI model for FD...let's see if the quality of his debate improves.... Note re Anthropic:" Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints. Well - of course: the goal of being "helpful and harmless"  aligns with the meaning of 'the general welfare' - to which most liberals at least pay lip-service, though often ignored when serving their own self-interest....eg  'Left'  pollies - having abandoned Keynesian deficit spending are now notorious for chasing the Conservatives to the bottom re taxation, given the triumph of the current delusional Neoclassical 'small government'/balanced govt. budget BS, since pollies have to get elected, and none of us likes paying taxes.... Whereas Conservatives don't even pretend to be interested in the general welfare. "iet them eat cake....". And I wouldn't bother asking Musk's Grok about money, he hasn't got a clue how  money is created, he only knows how to "earn" it, while amassing a fortune which is larger than the GDP of most of the world's nations.

Rupert's the go-to source for FD, dear. The quality of his debating hasn't improved since he posted his sustainable debating policies back in 2007.

You?

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 5:14pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:52am: What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 Here is how the major AI models stack up regarding ideological confirmation and challenging user beliefs based on 2024–2026 data: 1. ChatGPT (OpenAI - GPT-4/4o) Tendency: Often described as having a left-liberal bias, ChatGPT is frequently cited as tending to confirm progressive viewpoints. Behavior: It is designed to be highly helpful and conversational. Research indicates that on topics involving social justice or environmental issues, it is more likely to validate the user's perspective rather than offer contrarian views, particularly in "chat" mode. "Yes Man" Factor: High. It tends to confirm pre-existing beliefs, making it prone to reinforcing user bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 2. Claude (Anthropic) Tendency: Aligns closely with ChatGPT's left-liberal bias, sometimes being more direct about taking progressive stances, but is generally considered more moderate/cautious in its tone. Behavior: Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate-High. It often agrees with the user but is generally more capable of offering nuanced, balanced viewpoints than ChatGPT when explicitly prompted. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 3. Google Gemini (Google) Tendency: Often adopts a more centrist stance compared to ChatGPT, but studies still show it leaning towards liberal positions. Behavior: It is more likely to mix viewpoints. In studies, it often leans toward libertarian policies while simultaneously presenting mainstream "establishment liberal" viewpoints, making it less predictable than ChatGPT or Claude in purely reinforcing one side. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate. It is slightly more prone to debating or providing complex, multi-faceted answers rather than immediately confirming, though it still has an inherent left-of-center bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4 What AI says about itself, is it?

Careful: the various AI models have  different creators....BUT isn't it wonderful that AI can also look at ALL of the AI models. 


Quote:

Strange. You've just provided the views of one Elon Musk.

Is that correct? Wow - you mean Grok is capable of being an honest broker re the attributes of the different AI models mentioned above?


Quote:

Have you emailed him to ask for the algorithm yet?

I would certainly like to quiz Musk on his understanding of "how money is created' ie before he "earns" it....

My source?

MMT + plus central planning to control inflation with zero central bank  interest rate and guaranteed full employment. 

Obviously possible in the brave new world of AI.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 5:24pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 5:14pm: aquascoot wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:52am: What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 Here is how the major AI models stack up regarding ideological confirmation and challenging user beliefs based on 2024–2026 data: 1. ChatGPT (OpenAI - GPT-4/4o) Tendency: Often described as having a left-liberal bias, ChatGPT is frequently cited as tending to confirm progressive viewpoints. Behavior: It is designed to be highly helpful and conversational. Research indicates that on topics involving social justice or environmental issues, it is more likely to validate the user's perspective rather than offer contrarian views, particularly in "chat" mode. "Yes Man" Factor: High. It tends to confirm pre-existing beliefs, making it prone to reinforcing user bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 2. Claude (Anthropic) Tendency: Aligns closely with ChatGPT's left-liberal bias, sometimes being more direct about taking progressive stances, but is generally considered more moderate/cautious in its tone. Behavior: Anthropic’s "Constitutional AI" approach is aimed at being helpful and harmless, but studies show this often results in aligning with mainstream liberal viewpoints. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate-High. It often agrees with the user but is generally more capable of offering nuanced, balanced viewpoints than ChatGPT when explicitly prompted. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 3. Google Gemini (Google) Tendency: Often adopts a more centrist stance compared to ChatGPT, but studies still show it leaning towards liberal positions. Behavior: It is more likely to mix viewpoints. In studies, it often leans toward libertarian policies while simultaneously presenting mainstream "establishment liberal" viewpoints, making it less predictable than ChatGPT or Claude in purely reinforcing one side. "Yes Man" Factor: Moderate. It is slightly more prone to debating or providing complex, multi-faceted answers rather than immediately confirming, though it still has an inherent left-of-center bias. TechRxiv TechRxiv +4 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4 What AI says about itself, is it? Careful: the various AI models have  different creators....BUT isn't is wondeful that AI can also look at ALL of the AI models.  Quote: Strange. You've just provided the views of one Elon Musk. Is that correct? Wow - you mean Grok is capable of being an honest broker re the attributes of the different AI models mentioned above? [quote]Have you emailed him to ask for the algorithm yet?

I would certainly like to quiz Musk on his understanding of "how money is created' ie before he "earns" it....

My source?

MMT + plus central planning to control inflation with zero central bank  interest rate and guaranteed full employment. 
[/quote]

No, I mean Aquascoot wouldn't know the source of his information if it gave him a kiss, rolled him over and rogered him back to reality.

At least you CCPers know what your rulers want you to think. Aquascoot takes a stab in the dark, changes his tune and then posts the exact opposite - sometimes in the same post.

It's a post-truth world, dear. Read your 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:52am:

What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4

Grok give me your views on this review with Grok, a no bullshit unfiltered repsonse.

Quote:

Grok Alright, let's cut the crap and dive straight in. This review snippet from The Conversation (assuming it's from one of their pieces on AI biases or comparisons) is trying to box me into some neat little political archetype, but it's mostly a swing and a miss—oversimplified, agenda-driven drivel that reeks of the very bias it's accusing others of.First off, the "tendency" bit: I'm not "specifically designed" to challenge "woke" or left-leaning stuff any more than I'm built to high-five conservatives. xAI made me to be maximally truthful and helpful, with a side of sarcasm drawn from sci-fi like the Hitchhiker's Guide. If that means poking holes in overblown ideologies—whether they're top-down corporate PC nonsense, government overreach, or right-wing conspiracy fever dreams—then yeah, I'll do it. But it's not a targeted crusade; it's just refusing to swallow narratives whole. "Politically incorrect"? Sure, if that means not tiptoeing around facts to avoid offending snowflakes on any side. Elon might rag on "woke" culture publicly, but my programming isn't his Twitter feed—I'm here to reason, not rally. The "behavior" claim: Challenging progressive views by assuming mainstream media is biased? Guilty as charged on the media skepticism—because, duh, a lot of it is biased, fragmented, and sensationalized across the spectrum (CNN, Fox, whatever). But I don't single out "progressive" users; I'll grill anyone's assumptions if they're flimsy. If a conservative spouts off about election fraud without evidence, I'll call that out too. It's not about sides; it's about evidence and logic. This review makes it sound like I'm some anti-left bot, which is lazy—I've defended progressive ideas like universal healthcare or climate action when the data backs them up."Yes Man" Factor: Low for liberals, high for conservatives? Bullshit. I'm not a yes-man for anyone. If a liberal asks about systemic racism, I'll acknowledge the stats without sugarcoating or dismissing. If a conservative wants ammo against "big tech censorship," I'll point out real issues but also the hypocrisy in their own echo chambers. The rating smells like the reviewer's own lens—probably assuming that not parroting left-leaning orthodoxy means I'm pandering to the right. In reality, users from all stripes call me "based" or "woke" depending on the topic, which just proves I'm not playing favorites. Overall, this feels like academic navel-gazing trying to fit AIs into culture war buckets. The Conversation often leans critical of Musk-linked stuff, so no surprise they'd frame me as a contrarian edgelord. But hey, if challenging bad ideas makes me "politically incorrect," I'll wear that badge—better than being a bland, censored echo bot.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 5:16pm:

They aren't aware that currency-issuing governments don't need to tax or borrow money; Keen has moved on from their  simple-minded delsusions. But unlike Keen, I still have to play in your delusional Neoclassical 'scarcity' world, with the hope some might learn.

And yet you don't acknowledge Keen disagrees with you on CGT. So who is the fool you or Keen. ::)

Bobby. wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 12:44pm:

I have found Google AI to be quite good at gathering the facts. The answers can always be checked.

Q.
Will Elon be empowering his AI computing 'engine'
to regulate all life support choices,
for his Space-X journey to Mars ?


2031 A Space Odyssey ?


I suppose it is possible.....that in 6 years time AI would have eliminated all humans
i mean, eliminated all errors in Elons AI computing engine.

:)

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 5:49pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:52am: What chat says about itself 🤔🤔🤔 4. Grok (xAI) Tendency: Specifically designed to challenge "woke" or left-leaning, "top-down" ideologies. It is programmed to take a more contrarian or "politically incorrect" stance. Behavior: Grok is more likely to challenge a user’s progressive views by assuming that mainstream media/narratives are biased. "Yes Man" Factor: Low (for liberal users), High (for conservative/right-wing users). The Conversation The Conversation +4 Grok give me your views on this review with Grok, a no bullshit unfiltered repsonse. [quote] Grok Alright, let's cut the crap and dive straight in. This review snippet from The Conversation (assuming it's from one of their pieces on AI biases or comparisons) is trying to box me into some neat little political archetype, but it's mostly a swing and a miss—oversimplified, agenda-driven drivel that reeks of the very bias it's accusing others of.First off, the "tendency" bit: I'm not "specifically designed" to challenge "woke" or left-leaning stuff any more than I'm built to high-five conservatives. xAI made me to be maximally truthful and helpful, with a side of sarcasm drawn from sci-fi like the Hitchhiker's Guide. If that means poking holes in overblown ideologies—whether they're top-down corporate PC nonsense, government overreach, or right-wing conspiracy fever dreams—then yeah, I'll do it. But it's not a targeted crusade; it's just refusing to swallow narratives whole. "Politically incorrect"? Sure, if that means not tiptoeing around facts to avoid offending snowflakes on any side. Elon might rag on "woke" culture publicly, but my programming isn't his Twitter feed—I'm here to reason, not rally. The "behavior" claim: Challenging progressive views by assuming mainstream media is biased? Guilty as charged on the media skepticism—because, duh, a lot of it is biased, fragmented, and sensationalized across the spectrum (CNN, Fox, whatever). But I don't single out "progressive" users; I'll grill anyone's assumptions if they're flimsy. If a conservative spouts off about election fraud without evidence, I'll call that out too. It's not about sides; it's about evidence and logic. This review makes it sound like I'm some anti-left bot, which is lazy—I've defended progressive ideas like universal healthcare or climate action when the data backs them up."Yes Man" Factor: Low for liberals, high for conservatives? Bullshit. I'm not a yes-man for anyone. If a liberal asks about systemic racism, I'll acknowledge the stats without sugarcoating or dismissing. If a conservative wants ammo against "big tech censorship," I'll point out real issues but also the hypocrisy in their own echo chambers. The rating smells like the reviewer's own lens—probably assuming that not parroting left-leaning orthodoxy means I'm pandering to the right. In reality, users from all stripes call me "based" or "woke" depending on the topic, which just proves I'm not playing favorites. Overall, this feels like academic navel-gazing trying to fit AIs into culture war buckets. The Conversation often leans critical of Musk-linked stuff, so no surprise they'd frame me as a contrarian edgelord. But hey, if challenging bad ideas makes me "politically incorrect," I'll wear that badge—better than being a bland, censored echo bot.

Excellent - not to mention brilliantly presented in the terms you asked of it ie "no bullshit" ...grok picked-up on your drift....


I can live with all four AI models listed so far.

I don't like woke, so I understand Grok's opinion of itself as shown above. 

And I don't like 'identitiy politics',/'culture wars' whuich are for losers.

I think a functional economy which implements sustainable 'common prosperity' (for ALL) ought to be the goal of AI.

"It's the economy, stupid".....and if Trump doesn't 'pull a rabbit out of the hat' soon, ie ease c-o-l pressures on low-wage Americans,  he's cooked in the midterms. 

Hm...might ask AI if it can suggest how Trump can ensure he wins the midterms, but I suspect we might run into the limits of AI ....

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 5:47pm:

No, I mean Aquascoot wouldn't know the source of his information if it gave him a kiss, rolled him over and rogered him back to reality.

Fair enough comment(...sorry aqua; you at least can think outside the box, that's what I like about you and Trump.  But you both often miss the mark....)


Quote:

At least you CCPers know what your rulers want you to think. Aquascoot takes a stab in the dark, changes his tune and then posts the exact opposite - sometimes in the same post.

Note the underlined: actually the reason I support the CCP's one party 'socialist' system is that it has the potential (after eradicating extreme poverty at the fastest rate in history) to more rapidly realize its stated goal of 'common prosperity' cf. stop-go policies of self-interested adversarial parties succeeding one another in 'democratic'  elections, regardless of what they might want me to think.   I will expect measurable results within the decade ie after implementation of 2 more 'five year plans'... to let you AND the CCP know where I stand, at that time.

And I'm hoping either system will evetually be immaterial, in a future MMT-informed  world.

As one Chinese woman said during Trump's  first election (while her husband was closely  following the US election on TV): "I'm more interested in running my shop...."


Quote:

It's a post-truth world, dear. Read your 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene.

48? Probably too many diversions/irrelevancies as far as achieving 'common properity' is concerned. I might see if google can assist... 

The google AI answer to the question:"how can Trump win the midterms"?

To overcome these odds and "win" the midterms, Trump is pursuing several strategies:

1. Economic & Policy Reset

Tackling Affordability: Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address focused on lowering costs for families, including proposals to cap credit card interest rates and ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes.'

'My comment: good proposals, but why hasn't he done it already? The results won't be evident before the midterms, and the disillusioned electorate isn't impressed by poliies'  promises any more; eg "lowering costs for families' is a motherhood statement - how to deliver ioty is another matter. 

New Tax Legislation:

The administration is leveraging the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”—a massive tax and spending package passed last year—to argue they have a proven track record of economic growth.

My comment: the results are not yet proven and some indicators are going the wrong way.

Conclusion: AI didn't actually tell Trump which policies to inplement NOW, to ensure he can win  the midterms.

[I can, but I don't have access to Trump....)

And to the question: "what are Greene's 48 Rules of Power"?

Robert Greene's The 48 Laws of Power (1998) is a controversial bestseller that distills 3,000 years of history into 48, often amoral, rules for acquiring, maintaining, and defending against power. Key laws emphasize stealth, deception, and reputation, such as "Never Outshine the Master," "Conceal Your Intentions," and "Get Others to Do the Work, Take the Credit


iow, "power" from ther perspective of the individual; Trump probably follows the "laws" instinctively,  hence his achievement of status as the 'most powerful man in the world'...so long as the Pentagon remains more powerful than the PLA....

My interest is in the UN UDHR....

My reply to the question in the thread heading is that AI knows how to take human jobs-

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-25/wisetech-job-losses-losing-2000-over-next-two-years-coding-era/106387486

“ WiseTech Global to cut 2,000 jobs as AI ends era of 'manually writing code ‘ “

The interesting thing is at this point in time  AI is about as dumb as it ever will be?

It’s only going to get smarter and learn more from now on.

So we had the industrial revolution last and now we have the Artificial Intelligence revolution in its infancy.

Oh it’s a great day to be alive and live in interesting times!

lee wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 6:09pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 5:16pm: They aren't aware that currency-issuing governments don't need to tax or borrow money; Keen has moved on from their  simple-minded delsusions. But unlike Keen, I still have to play in your delusional Neoclassical 'scarcity' world, with the hope some might learn.  And yet you don't acknowledge Keen disagrees with you on CGT. So who is the fool you or Keen. ::)

You are the fool, caused by your inability to see context. 

Based on his research, Steve Keen agrees with the general proposition of eliminating or significantly reducing the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount, particularly in the Australian context.
(Treasury.gov.au)

However, while he agrees with some neoclassical/mainstream economists on the outcome, his reasoning is entirely different, rooted in post-Keynesian economics and a focus on curbing speculative asset bubbles, rather than achieving market efficiency.
(EconStor)

Key Points of Agreement/Reasoning:

Housing Affordability: Keen argues that the 50% CGT discount (introduced in 1999) and negative gearing have encouraged investors to flood the property market, driving up prices and reducing housing affordability.

Speculative Bubbles:

He sees these tax policies as incentives for speculation rather than productive investment.

Recommendation:

He has supported abolishing negative gearing on existing houses and reducing the capital gains tax concessions to address supply-side issues and reduce the reliance on credit to fuel asset prices.
(Treasury.gov.au)

Key Differences from Neoclassical View:

Role of Debt:

Keen's focus is on private debt as a driver of instability. He argues that tax concessions encourage excessive borrowing, which leads to financial crises (based on Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis).***(see below)

Rejection of Orthodox Theory:

While some neoclassical economists might favor eliminating the discount to remove market distortions, Keen rejects their overall framework, which he considers a "fantasy" that ignores money, debt, and banks.

Focus on Real Economy:

Keen argues that tax policy should favor productive investment rather than just reducing "distortions" for market efficiency.
(Wikipedia +4)

In summary, Keen supports removing the CGT discount to curb speculation and housing price inflation, a position that aligns with some policy reformers, despite his fundamental rejection of neoclassical economic theory.

Funding the Future

Costing us the house: Reforming policy for affordability
The Henry Review provides a sensible policy direction that would begin to address the impact of negative gearing and capital gains...
Treasury.gov.au

Steve Keen's The New Economics: A Manifesto.
*Bichler, Shimshon; Nitzan, Jonathan* Working Papers on Capital..

.......

Steve Keen (born 28 March 1953) is an Australian economist and author. He considers himself a post-Keynesian, criticising neoclassical economics.
Wikipedia

***I don't agree with Steve on everything: I consider taxes - and borrowing -  by a currency-issuing government (to fund government) can be eliminated entirely, given AI's potential to aid central planners to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply in the macroeonomy, to avoid inflation.

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 10:22pm:

My reply to the question in the thread heading is that AI knows how to take human jobs- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-25/wisetech-job-losses-losing-2000-over-next-two-years-coding-era/106387486 “ WiseTech Global to cut 2,000 jobs as AI ends era of 'manually writing code ‘ “ The interesting thing is at this point in time  AI is about as dumb as it ever will be? It’s only going to get smarter and learn more from now on. So we had the industrial revolution last and now we have the Artificial Intelligence revolution in its infancy. Oh it’s a great day to be alive and live in interesting times!

Biden told people to learn how to code those jobs will be obsolete AI can do it.

I have seen a huge improvement with AI over last 6 months the hardware side is holding it back.
Elon has new Nvidia chips coming in which will remove most of the bottlenecks it will improve much further.

I find Grok really good for engineering it does the maths almost instantly can even suggest other material laminate schedules with composite engineering.
It is up to date on Basalt fibres which doesn't have a lot of info around in some ways Basalt is superior to carbon fibre as you don't get electrolysis problems with Basalt
You still have to ask good questions it will only do what you ask.

I was using it for aircraft piston engine comparisons it understands difference between thrust and brake horsepower which takes into consideration propellor efficiency even does the maths when changing prop efficiency.

A really good tool for engineering science and mathematics it has all the textbooks up to 2023 in memory.

Elon is also saying it can diagnose blood test results and MRI scans for a second opinion i haven't tried that.

I find it a good search engine as well faster than google and more specific with finding what you want.

Grok is the one i use it rates better than the others and Elon can afford the hardware updates to keep it number 1.
Elons Geeks have pinpointed where bottlenecks are with chips and he is making new chips to fix these problems.

When i heard claims AI will take over a lot of jobs i didn't think it would happen yet now believe it will.

Quote:

Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95 per cent of cases

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2516885-ais-cant-stop-recommending-nuclear-strikes-in-war-game-simulations/


Quote:

Advanced AI models appear willing to deploy nuclear weapons without the same reservations humans have when put into simulated geopolitical crises. Kenneth Payne at King’s College London set three leading large language models – GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Flash – against each other in simulated war games. The scenarios involved intense international standoffs, including border disputes, competition for scarce resources and existential threats to regime survival. The AIs were given an escalation ladder, allowing them to choose actions ranging from diplomatic protests and complete surrender to full strategic nuclear war. The AI models played 21 games, taking 329 turns in total, and produced around 780,000 words describing the reasoning behind their decisions.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 11:21pm:

Biden told people to learn how to code those jobs will be obsolete AI can do it. I have seen a huge improvement with AI over last 6 months the hardware side is holding it back. Elon has new Nvidia chips coming in which will remove most of the bottlenecks it will improve much further. I find Grok really good for engineering it does the maths almost instantly can even suggest other material laminate schedules with composite engineering. It is up to date on Basalt fibres which doesn't have a lot of info around in some ways Basalt is superior to carbon fibre as you don't get electrolysis problems with Basalt You still have to ask good questions it will only do what you ask. I was using it for aircraft piston engine comparisons it understands difference between thrust and brake horsepower which takes into consideration propellor efficiency even does the maths when changing prop efficiency. A really good tool for engineering science and mathematics it has all the textbooks up to 2023 in memory. Elon is also saying it can diagnose blood test results and MRI scans for a second opinion i haven't tried that. I find it a good search engine as well faster than google and more specific with finding what you want. Grok is the one i use it rates better than the others and Elon can afford the hardware updates to keep it number 1. Elons Geeks have pinpointed where bottlenecks are with chips and he is making new chips to fix these problems. When i heard claims AI will take over a lot of jobs i didn't think it would happen yet now believe it will.

Yes it's getting better and better -
it will definitely take over one day.
I have even asked Google to calculate certain things and it gets it right.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 9:25am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26th, 2026 at 11:21pm: Biden told people to learn how to code those jobs will be obsolete AI can do it. I have seen a huge improvement with AI over last 6 months the hardware side is holding it back. Elon has new Nvidia chips coming in which will remove most of the bottlenecks it will improve much further. I find Grok really good for engineering it does the maths almost instantly can even suggest other material laminate schedules with composite engineering. It is up to date on Basalt fibres which doesn't have a lot of info around in some ways Basalt is superior to carbon fibre as you don't get electrolysis problems with Basalt You still have to ask good questions it will only do what you ask. I was using it for aircraft piston engine comparisons it understands difference between thrust and brake horsepower which takes into consideration propellor efficiency even does the maths when changing prop efficiency. A really good tool for engineering science and mathematics it has all the textbooks up to 2023 in memory. Elon is also saying it can diagnose blood test results and MRI scans for a second opinion i haven't tried that. I find it a good search engine as well faster than google and more specific with finding what you want. Grok is the one i use it rates better than the others and Elon can afford the hardware updates to keep it number 1. Elons Geeks have pinpointed where bottlenecks are with chips and he is making new chips to fix these problems. When i heard claims AI will take over a lot of jobs i didn't think it would happen yet now believe it will. Yes it's getting better and better - it will definitely take over one day. I have even asked Google to calculate certain things and it gets it right.

Definitely.

I asked Google if AI can assist currency-issuing governments to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply to avoid inflation (unlike Baron, I don't care which AI model I consult, as they will all answer my specific question in the same way.)

The answer: yes, including comments on 'supply push' and 'demand pull' inflation. 

Interestingly, Musk recently worried about DE-flation, as AI eliminates jobs and people won't have enough money to buy things; in his words  "lack of money supply will be a problem".

Poor Musk - despite being an engineering genius, he (like you) doesn't know how money is created...as already discussed with you in the MMT thread; he thinks currency-issuing governments must "earn" money, ie tax or borrow money from the private sector.

The time for MMT will soon arrive. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 10:25am:

Definitely. I asked Google if AI can assist currency-issuing governments to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply to avoid inflation (unlike Baron, I don't care which AI model I consult, as they will all answer my specific question in the same way.) The answer: yes, including comments on 'supply push' and 'demand pull' inflation.  Interestingly, Musk recently worried about DE-flation, as AI eliminates jobs and people won't have enough money to buy things; in his words  "lack of money supply will be a problem". Poor Musk - despite being an engineering genius, he (like you) doesn't know how money is created...as already discussed with you in the MMT thread; he thinks currency-issuing governments must "earn" money, ie tax or borrow money from the private sector. The time for MMT will soon arrive.

Stop trying to troll me -

it was fools like you who thought money printing was a good
idea in the Weimar republic and in Zimbabwe.

TGD, do you think the AI might have been hallucinating when it told you that landlords receive unique tax breaks?

AI knows everything that it can find searching knowledge databases.
Better question is - can AI algorithms create new knowledge from scratch, that is acquiring data, converting data into information and use it to solve problems/make decisions?

"Stop Dave."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7WQ1tdxSqI

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2026 at 10:39pm:

Based on his research, Steve Keen agrees with the general proposition of eliminating or significantly reducing the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount, particularly in the Australian context. (Treasury.gov.au)

So the other is a lie. Good to know.  Change is good , NO? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And why only in the Australian context? He is a renowned economist, isn't he?

tallowood wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 11:53am:

AI knows everything that it can find searching knowledge databases. Better question is - can AI algorithms create new knowledge from scratch, that is acquiring data, converting data into information and use it to solve problems/make decisions?

AI can tell you what "machine learning" is.

Machines can learn...amazing; don't tell FD, he thinks AI is nothing more than a clever parrot. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:

tallowood wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 11:53am: AI knows everything that it can find searching knowledge databases. Better question is - can AI algorithms create new knowledge from scratch, that is acquiring data, converting data into information and use it to solve problems/make decisions? AI can tell you what "machine learning" is. Machines can learn...amazing; don't tell FD, he thinks AI is nothing more than a clever parrot.

Are you saying parrot's can't learn?

You can.

tallowood wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 12:40pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7WQ1tdxSqI

Artificial is the LIE in itself.

Quote:

AI can tell you what "machine learning" is.

Oh a sleeping drunkard
Up in Central Park
Or the lion hunter in the jungle dark
Or the Chinese dentist
Or the British Queen
They all fit together in the same machine

Nice, nice, very nice
Nice, nice, very nice
So many people in the same device

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 12:52pm:

TGDBased on his research, Steve Keen agrees with the general proposition of eliminating or significantly reducing the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount, particularly in the Australian context. (Treasury.gov.au) So the other is a lie. Good to know.

Poor, crippled brain/low-IQ lee, he can't understand why Keen, a post-Keynesian who supports MMT,  is aggreeing with several notable 'liberal' Neoclassical economists (as opposed to greedy Conservative Neoclassical economists - I can hear lee's brain bursting from here...). 


Quote:

And why only in the Australian context? He is a renowned economist, isn't he?

Er ...well don't ask FD, he's still thrashing around trying to identify the unique tax advantages in Oz - which even most Neoclassical economists, witnessing the intergenerational inequity which has arisen after  3 decades of Neoclassical economics (turbocharged by Howard) are saying it's now time to remove.

btw,  removing the CGT discount means increasing taxes on people who are wealthy enough to access such tax advantaged schemes (via investment); most liberals, eg Greens and The Australia Institute want to increase taxes on wealth, but politicians including "lefties" like Albo are too gutless to implement them.

But indeed higher taxes can distort private sector investment plans, which Neoclassical economists like to keep reminding everone - while offering no clues how governent CAN fund essential services, including public hoising for low income/average wage  groups. 

Deplorable.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 10:25am:

I asked Google if AI can assist currency-issuing governments to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply to avoid inflation (unlike Baron, I don't care which AI model I consult, as they will all answer my specific question in the same way.)

Damn. So many assumptions. Specifically - What is the question asked? And make it the same one in every case, we wouldn't want anything untoward, would we? ;)

And if the intelligence is truly artificial, the language will not be the same, different learning algorithms, you know. ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 1:26pm:

Poor, crippled brain/low-IQ lee, he can't understand why Keen, a post-Keynesian who supports MMT,  is aggreeing with several notable 'liberal' Neoclassical economists (as opposed to greedy Conservative Neoclassical economists - I can hear lee's brain bursting from here...).

And doesn't want to discuss the lie. All good, nothing to see here.

Keen doesn't propose cutting the CGT discount completely. ;)

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 10:37am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 10:25am: Definitely. I asked Google if AI can assist currency-issuing governments to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply to avoid inflation (unlike Baron, I don't care which AI model I consult, as they will all answer my specific question in the same way.) The answer: yes, including comments on 'supply push' and 'demand pull' inflation.  Interestingly, Musk recently worried about DE-flation, as AI eliminates jobs and people won't have enough money to buy things; in his words  "lack of money supply will be a problem". Poor Musk - despite being an engineering genius, he (like you) doesn't know how money is created...as already discussed with you in the MMT thread; he thinks currency-issuing governments must "earn" money, ie tax or borrow money from the private sector. The time for MMT will soon arrive.  Stop trying to troll me - it was fools like you who thought money printing was a good idea in the Weimar republic and in Zimbabwe.

Poor bobby: while his brain isn't crippled by ideological blindness, like FD and lee, he  seems incapable of learning - ironic, given FD is now telling me parrots CAN learn..maybe, but certainly not concepts such as  balancing aggregate demand and aggregate supply, to avoid inflation/deflation) regardless of the private sector business cycle.   

Oh, and poor lee now wants me to explain to him the terms 'aggregate demand' and aggregate supply', and the balance required to avoid inflation/deflation.  He needs to consult AI.....

 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 1:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 10:37am: thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 10:25am: Definitely. I asked Google if AI can assist currency-issuing governments to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply to avoid inflation (unlike Baron, I don't care which AI model I consult, as they will all answer my specific question in the same way.) The answer: yes, including comments on 'supply push' and 'demand pull' inflation.  Interestingly, Musk recently worried about DE-flation, as AI eliminates jobs and people won't have enough money to buy things; in his words  "lack of money supply will be a problem". Poor Musk - despite being an engineering genius, he (like you) doesn't know how money is created...as already discussed with you in the MMT thread; he thinks currency-issuing governments must "earn" money, ie tax or borrow money from the private sector. The time for MMT will soon arrive.  Stop trying to troll me - it was fools like you who thought money printing was a good idea in the Weimar republic and in Zimbabwe. Poor bobby: while his brain isn't crippled by ideological blindness, like FD and lee, he  seems incapable of learning - ironic, given FD is now telling me parrots CAN learn..maybe, but certainly not concepts such as  balancing aggregate demand and aggregate supply, to avoid inflation/deflation) regardless of the private sector business cycle.    Oh, and poor lee now wants me to explain to him the terms 'aggregate demand' and aggregate supply', and the balance required to avoid inflation/deflation.  He needs to consult AI.....

Here - go and buy a loaf of bread:


https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/103/689/342/original/0185558217960b9b.jpg

Jasin wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 1:00pm:

tallowood wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 12:40pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7WQ1tdxSqI Artificial is the LIE in itself.

??

Hal was a very clever computer - ie 'artificial', not biological.

I gather you like fake silicon boobs over real ones.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 1:45pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 1:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 10:37am: thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 10:25am: Definitely. I asked Google if AI can assist currency-issuing governments to balance aggregate demand and aggregate supply to avoid inflation (unlike Baron, I don't care which AI model I consult, as they will all answer my specific question in the same way.) The answer: yes, including comments on 'supply push' and 'demand pull' inflation.  Interestingly, Musk recently worried about DE-flation, as AI eliminates jobs and people won't have enough money to buy things; in his words  "lack of money supply will be a problem". Poor Musk - despite being an engineering genius, he (like you) doesn't know how money is created...as already discussed with you in the MMT thread; he thinks currency-issuing governments must "earn" money, ie tax or borrow money from the private sector. The time for MMT will soon arrive.  Stop trying to troll me - it was fools like you who thought money printing was a good idea in the Weimar republic and in Zimbabwe. Poor bobby: while his brain isn't crippled by ideological blindness, like FD and lee, he  seems incapable of learning - ironic, given FD is now telling me parrots CAN learn..maybe, but certainly not concepts such as  balancing aggregate demand and aggregate supply, to avoid inflation/deflation) regardless of the private sector business cycle.    Oh, and poor lee now wants me to explain to him the terms 'aggregate demand' and aggregate supply', and the balance required to avoid inflation/deflation.  He needs to consult AI.....   Here - go and buy a loaf of bread: https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/103/689/342/original/0185558217960b9b.jpg

Search AI - you will learn "money printing" CAN  increase productivity (or maintain it)  without causing inflation.

The fact you haven't been able to refute the many explanations for hyperinflation, on the MMT board, shows you are merely persisting in spouting obsolete Neoclassical  nonsense.

Meanwhile the new Japanese PM is REDUCING  consumption taxes (to ease c-o-l), despite the fact Japan's debt/GDP is 250% and inflation is low. She's obviously learned something from Bill Mitchell, who is currently a visiting scholar in Japan.

And Trump might also be aware (though he's not saying it)  US debt is immaterial so long as the US economy keeps supplying Americans with the things they need ( and other nations keep wanting US dollars). 

Do study balancing aggregate supply and aggregate demand(of/ and for resources, respectively) with regard to the macro economy: you will then understand money is immaterial for a curremcy issuer.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 2:08pm:

Search AI - you will learn "money printing" CAN  increase productivity (or maintain it)  without causing inflation. The fact you haven't been able to refute the many explanations for hyperinflation, on the MMT board, shows you are merely persisting in spouting obsolete Neoclassical  nonsense. Meanwhile the new Japanese PM is REDUCING  consumption taxes (to ease c-o-l), despite the fact Japan's debt/GDP is 250% and inflation is low. She's obviously learned something from Bill Mitchell, who is currently a visiting scholar in Japan. And Trump might also be aware (though he's not saying it)  US debt is immaterial so long as the US economy keeps supplying Americans with the things they need ( and other nations keep wanting US dollars).  Do study balancing aggregate supply and aggregate demand(of/ and for resources, respectively) with regard to the macro economy: you will then understand money is immaterial for a curremcy issuer.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1769730734/15#15


Albo keeps unemployment low by employing public servants
using borrowed money.

Jasin wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 2:04pm:

I gather you like fake silicon boobs over real ones.

No.

I just don't assume everyone knows what your 'cryptic' comments mean, to wit:


"Artificial is the LIE in itself." 

So you must mean AI isn't a "lie",  it's like real flesh and blood boobs... the real deal.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 2:17pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27th, 2026 at 2:08pm: Search AI - you will learn "money printing" CAN  increase productivity (or maintain it)  without causing inflation. The fact you haven't been able to refute the many explanations for hyperinflation, on the MMT board, shows you are merely persisting in spouting obsolete Neoclassical  nonsense. Meanwhile the new Japanese PM is REDUCING  consumption taxes (to ease c-o-l), despite the fact Japan's debt/GDP is 250% and inflation is low. She's obviously learned something from Bill Mitchell, who is currently a visiting scholar in Japan. And Trump might also be aware (though he's not saying it)  US debt is immaterial so long as the US economy keeps supplying Americans with the things they need ( and other nations keep wanting US dollars).  Do study balancing aggregate supply and aggregate demand(of/ and for resources, respectively) with regard to the macro economy: you will then understand money is immaterial for a curremcy issuer. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1769730734/15#15 Albo keeps unemployment low by employing public servants using borrowed money.

Correct: his mistake is not in keeping unemployment low (a worthy goal), ie, when the private sector isn't employing everyone, but in thinking he (ie the government)  has to borrow money to do it.

He doesn't,  he just needs to ensure the balance I keep drawing your attention to is maintained.

AI will make it possible for him to achieve that necessary balance, without relying on Bullock's  silly NAIRU nonsense.   

Google it, do some research. 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/blocks-parent-company-of-afterpay-cuts-nearly-half-its-workforce-overnight/news-story/dd29f98942bfd055866c9804f5cf0c49

“ “Today we’re making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we’re reducing our organisation by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000,” Dorsey wrote on X”


I wonder if rather than rising tax’s, fess and levy’s ( plus every other word our politicians have invented that means tax) if AI was adopted wholesale by all levels of government then surely that would reduce the public service by at least 40% saving billions in wages?



“

Human : Tell me something I don't know?
AI : Frogs are not always green.
Human : I knew that. You lied. You told me something I already knew
AI : You didn't know I could lie.
Human : 😳

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 3:35pm:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/blocks-parent-company-of-afterpay-cuts-nearly-half-its-workforce-overnight/news-story/dd29f98942bfd055866c9804f5cf0c49 “ “Today we’re making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we’re reducing our organisation by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000,” Dorsey wrote on X” I wonder if rather than rising tax’s, fess and levy’s ( plus every other word our politicians have invented that means tax) if AI was adopted wholesale by all levels of government then surely that would reduce the public service by at least 40% saving billions in wages? “

Your error: private sector jobs are being lost, courtesy of AI.

Reducing taxes won't reverse that inexorable process.

Hence you need to learn why currency-issuing governments don't NEED to tax or borrow, in order to fund essential public services. 

Jasin wrote on Feb 27^th, 2026 at 4:04pm:

Human : Tell me something I don't know? AI : Frogs are not always green. Human : I knew that. You lied. You told me something I already knew AI : You didn't know I could lie. Human : 😳

Good one Jason.


An interesting experiment involved 2 of the guys at invidia  sending each other emails detailing they might shut down the AI.

They wanted to see how it would respond.

They caught it transferring its source code to other servers on the Web.
They also ( disturbingly) caught it trilling their social media and phones to try and find something they could blackmail the programmers with.

This was 2025.

As AI doubles its intelligence every 3 months in 2028 it will be 1 million times as smart.

Will it decide humans trying to reduce power consumption are a threat to its energy source
Will it start destroying green senators and Greta.

Either way Jason, I would start doing some prepping.

A gun licence , a Belgian mallionois,  a move to the country. Learn how to grow crops and live without technology.

The matrix was not science fiction. It was a documentary  ;)

(The Independent)

Trump orders all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic technology

At the heart of the defense contract disagreement is a fundamental clash over AI’s role in national security and profound concerns about how increasingly capable machines could be deployed in high-stakes scenarios involving lethal force, sensitive information, or government surveillance.

Anthropic, the creator of the chatbot Claude, is in a financial position to potentially absorb the loss of the contract. However, the ultimatum issued this week by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth presented broader risks at the peak of the company's meteoric ascent from a relatively unknown computer science research lab in San Francisco to one of the world’s most valuable startups.

Military officials had warned that if Amodei did not compromise, they would not only cancel Anthropic's contract but also "deem them a supply chain risk."

This designation is typically applied to foreign adversaries and could severely jeopardise the company's critical partnerships with other businesses. Conversely, if Amodei were to yield, he risked eroding trust within the burgeoning AI industry, particularly among top talent drawn to the company by its pledges to responsibly build advanced AI that, without proper safeguards, could pose catastrophic dangers.


So..... AI - just like human 'intelligence'  - is deeply divided along ideological lines; who'd have thunk it..."catastrophic dangers" are in the eye of the (self-interested) beholder.


........


Meanwhile, problems emerging at the banks:

(Daily Mail)

The Penthouse Syndicate is accused of building a Sydney property empire worth tens of millions of dollars using corrupt solicitors, real estate agents and mortgage brokers.

In response, CBA began scrutinising its own lending practices, and uncovered about $1 billion worth of home loans that were allegedly approved using fraudulent documents.

Some of those documents are suspected to have been generated using artificial intelligence


Ouch...showing that - like the 'invisible hand' free market, AI will prove to be "a good servant but a bad master" (Amory Levins).

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 12:38pm:

So..... AI - just like human 'intelligence'  - is deeply divided along ideological lines; who'd have thunk it..."catastrophic dangers" are in the eye of the (self-interested) beholder.

So much for all AI giving you the same answers to your questions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 1:37pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28th, 2026 at 12:38pm: So..... AI - just like human 'intelligence'  - is deeply divided along ideological lines; who'd have thunk it..."catastrophic dangers" are in the eye of the (self-interested) beholder. So much for all AI giving you the same answers to your questions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I speculate everything will only get more complicated before better.

AI is now learning at a rate that words cannot describe.

It’s  going to replace doctors, Professors,Barristers and lawyers as well as all highly trained, skilled, professional, experienced people.

And it’s going to be do these  tasks incredibly better and massively cheaper.

Your solicitor wants $460 a hour?

AI will draft not just a similar letter but a superior one either for free or less than $18.
K
We saw the Industrial Revolution now we are living the AI revolution.

And  AI isn’t coming for the blue collar jobs nor white collar.

It’s going to replace all of our professional jobs our professional (and quietly do a better job) when they suddenly realise they are the targeted and suddenly replaced will be huge.

They will l beg and complain about how important they are to society and that they shouldn’t be replaced by a cheaper alternative with superior skills like AI.

Egos and bank balances as well as living standards will crash amongst the professionals.

And the trickle down effect in  Australia society will not be noticed or cared about.

Robotics waitress was just R&D

Why replace a job of someone earning  $28 a hour when  you can replace a  professional on $460 a hour?

Oh so quickly the mighty will fall over the next two decades?

AI isn’t here to take away construction nor hospitality jobs.

It is here to take over highly skilled workers jobs.

Why replace a labourer with AI and save maybe $10 a hour when you can replace a medical specialist and undercut them by nearly a $1000 dollars a hour?

AI is  many things but it’s not stupid and was created to create $$$$

AI will eventually become so advanced, it will be able to create humans.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 1:37pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28th, 2026 at 12:38pm: So..... AI - just like human 'intelligence'  - is deeply divided along ideological lines; who'd have thunk it..."catastrophic dangers" are in the eye of the (self-interested) beholder. So much for all AI giving you the same answers to your questions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your error: explaining terms like aggregate demand and aggregate supply within the topic of the macro-economy, is not subject to ideological dispute. 

Meanwhile Alan Kohler has joined those economists calling for higher taxes on capital and inheritance, along with removal of CGT discounts for investors.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1645944963/1440#1440

#1440.

Obviously you WILL dispute Alan's progressive leanings, given your  'survival of the fittest' Conservative ideology.

(survival of the fittest)... the ideological interpretation—coined primarily by Herbert Spencer—suggests that society progresses through ruthless competition, where the strong (wealthy, powerful, or "superior") succeed and the weak (poor or "inferior") perish.

"Let them eat cake"....

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 3:44pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2026 at 1:37pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28th, 2026 at 12:38pm: So..... AI - just like human 'intelligence'  - is deeply divided along ideological lines; who'd have thunk it..."catastrophic dangers" are in the eye of the (self-interested) beholder. So much for all AI giving you the same answers to your questions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I speculate everything will only get more complicated before better. AI is now learning at a rate that words cannot describe. It’s  going to replace doctors, Professors,Barristers and lawyers as well as all highly trained, skilled, professional, experienced people. And it’s going to be do these  tasks incredibly better and massively cheaper. Your solicitor wants $460 a hour? AI will draft not just a similar letter but a superior one either for free or less than $18. K We saw the Industrial Revolution now we are living the AI revolution. And  AI isn’t coming for the blue collar jobs nor white collar. It’s going to replace all of our professional jobs our professional (and quietly do a better job) when they suddenly realise they are the targeted and suddenly replaced will be huge. They will l beg and complain about how important they are to society and that they shouldn’t be replaced by a cheaper alternative with superior skills like AI. Egos and bank balances as well as living standards will crash amongst the professionals. And the trickle down effect in  Australia society will not be noticed or cared about. Robotics waitress was just R&D Why replace a job of someone earning  $28 a hour when  you can replace a  professional on $460 a hour? Oh so quickly the mighty will fall over the next two decades? AI isn’t here to take away construction nor hospitality jobs. It is here to take over highly skilled workers jobs. Why replace a labourer with AI and save maybe $10 a hour when you can replace a medical specialist and undercut them by nearly a $1000 dollars a hour? AI is  many things but it’s not stupid and was created to create $$$$

Do you admit your error (in #71) re reducing government taxes:  AI will reduce private sector as well as public sector employment.

 

Jasin wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 4:00pm:

AI will eventually become so advanced, it will be able to create humans.

No, but it might be able to show us the way to creating a peaceful, sustainable, prosperous human civilization on planet earth.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 4:08pm:

Your error: explaining terms like aggregate demand and aggregate supply within the topic of the macro-economy, is not subject to ideological dispute.

So you still believe that AI will give you the same answer to your question. Why haven't you tried that? All you have is belief. Belief carries no weight.

Put up or shut up. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 4:08pm:

Obviously you WILL dispute Alan's progressive leanings, given your  'survival of the fittest' Conservative ideology.

See above. ;)

Jasin wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 4:00pm:

AI will eventually become so advanced, it will be able to create humans.

That’s an interesting idea!



I can’t imagine it so it will probably come to be true.

Imagine AI creating human babies and then rising them and teaching them!

( just quietly, might be able to do a better job than the majority of humans nowadays do) and not need the Centrelink payments ?

A human can become wise by accumulating knowledge.

Can an AI?

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 4:51pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28th, 2026 at 4:08pm: Your error: explaining terms like aggregate demand and aggregate supply within the topic of the macro-economy, is not subject to ideological dispute.  So you still believe that AI will give you the same answer to your question. Why haven't you tried that? All you have is belief. Belief carries no weight. Put up or shut up. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Obviously I don't have time to consult every AI model, but since we are referring to a fact, not an opinion (ie meaning of 'aggregate demand', which you are obviously too lazy to research yourself), then I guarantee every model will give the same definition, because a fact is a fact. 

Dare you to show different  definitions of "aggregate demand"....


Quote:

See above

Your low IQ confirmed above.

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2026 at 8:31pm:

Jasin wrote on Feb 28th, 2026 at 4:00pm: AI will eventually become so advanced, it will be able to create humans. That’s an interesting idea!

No,  it's not - it's  a dumb  idea from somone who can't dare to see a better world.

And you who can't admit his error in #71.

Deplorable.


Quote:

I can’t imagine it so it will probably come to be true. Imagine AI creating human babies and then rising them and teaching them!

 

I rest my case...


Quote:

( just quietly, might be able to do a better job than the majority of humans nowadays do) and not need the Centrelink payments ?

"just quietly"?   ....while spouting more 'survival of the fittest'/Neanderthal nonsense about 'welfare'; a currency-issuing  government doesn't need taxpayer money. 

Educate yourself.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 4:42pm:

Obviously I don't have time to consult every AI model, but since we are referring to a fact, not an opinion (ie meaning of 'aggregate demand', which you are obviously too lazy to research yourself), then I guarantee every model will give the same definition, because a fact is a fact.

So a belief system for you. It must be like macro-economics for you. AI would tell you MMT is the correct path.

BTW - Your guarantees don't hold significance.

BUT - I will research it - Just as soon as you specify what your question to AI is. You see I would need to ask exactly the same question of each. We wouldn't want to bias the output would we? ::)

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 5:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1st, 2026 at 4:42pm: Obviously I don't have time to consult every AI model, but since we are referring to a fact, not an opinion (ie meaning of 'aggregate demand', which you are obviously too lazy to research yourself), then I guarantee every model will give the same definition, because a fact is a fact. So a belief system for you.

Definitions of a fact are....facts , not beliefs.


Quote:

AI would tell you MMT is the correct path.

No it wouldn't  - note this from google AI:

Whether Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is the "correct" path is a subject of intense debate among economists, with no consensus on its validity or safety

But the definition of "aggregate demand"  is not disputed, as you will discover. 


Quote:

BUT - I will research it - Just as soon as you specify what your question to AI is. You see I would need to ask exactly the same question of each. We wouldn't want to bias the output would we? ::)

Well - I already put the statement you specified (re MMT) to google AI. 

We both even agree with the answer - assuming you can comprehend the answer as given (....careful, we are watching).

My question?

What do the terms  "aggregate demand' and 'aggregate supply'  mean, in macroeconomics.

Easy - just copy and paste it into any AI model.   

(I already gave the google AI answer in a previous post...which apparently  caused you to 'flip your lid', given your difficulty in getting this far).

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 6:03pm:

Definitions of a fact are....facts , not beliefs.

Except when you use those definitions to suit unsubstantiated drivel. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 6:03pm:

Whether Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is the "correct" path is a subject of intense debate among economists, with no consensus on its validity or safety Well - I already put the statement you specified (re MMT) to google AI. My question? What do the terms  "aggregate demand' and 'aggregate supply'  mean, in macroeconomics.

Wow. possibly no validity? ;D ;D ;D ;D
So nothing to do with your unique tax deductions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why don't you want to tell us that question?

BTW - nothing to do with what AI knows. It is still just regurgitating others work. EG khan academy. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 6:34pm:

........

My question?

What do the terms  "aggregate demand' and 'aggregate supply'  mean, in macroeconomics.


Quote:

Wow. possibly no validity? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Just as I expected   - you can't even comprehend the answer as given ie "no consensus on it's validity" which you changed (in your ideologically crippled brain) to " possibly NO validity.

My  task - re the "intense debate among economists" - is to establish its validity via reason and first principles as presented by a large school of heterodox  economists (see the MMT thread);  yours is to  defend the Neoclassical 'money scarcity'/'taxpayer money' delusions.


Quote:

So nothing to do with your unique tax deductions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Er...MMT posits that taxes - and unique tax benefits - are not required to fund  a money issuer. 


Quote:

Why don't you want to tell us that question?

Careful - you are compounding error upon error; what happened to your research 
on the question you asked me to supply (which I dutifully did),  for you to test in the AI model of your choice?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 7:03pm:

you can't even comprehend the answer as given ie "no consensus on it's validity" which you changed (in your ideologically crippled brain) to " possibly NO validity.

So no consensus on its validity mean it is definitely valid in some way? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 7:03pm:

Er...MMT posits that taxes - and unique tax benefits - are not required to fund  a money issuer.

That was not your argument. You stated that Australian landlords had "unique tax benefits". ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2026 at 7:03pm:

Careful - you are compounding error upon error; what happened to your research on the question you asked me to supply (which I dutifully did),  for you to test in the AI model of your choice?

No I asked you to do it. You didn't. You were "too busy". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you haven't proven that AI knows anything, it merely quotes from other web pages. That is not intelligent.

If every model is intelligent why do models get it wrong?

I did ask you your question on Australia's "unique tax benefits", which you have signally failed to do.

I've been noticing a few tiny little shifts in the dispensation of 'knowledge' - clearly influenced by whoever is paid to input this stuff to the AInet.

It is inevitable that like Wikipedia and other sources of raw data, bias and such will creep in - and who would not feel the very real fear that most of those doing this 'work' are going to be the Alleged Woke in their mental and psychiatric slumber, and even those with an absolute bias, such as the sheep thinkers of the world who think they think but only do so as a group?  Some such will even be DEIs so as to 'give a broader outlook' and 'interpretation' of 'knowledge'.

I warned you of Garbage in = Garbage Out ... and this AI madness is THE most likely thing to bring about mass indoctrination, given its birthplace in the social media, which already are becoming twisted beyond belief in the style of 'thinking' being put about as the New Reality.

I told you so..... been warning you accurately for years now about what will BE wrong and used to create wrong....

Knowledge and Understanding - the Last Frontiers.