My conversations wi...
 
Notifications
Clear all

My conversations with AI chatbots

27 Posts
5 Users
5 Reactions
357 Views
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  

Posted by: @george-witzgall
But those Jews who are NOT opposed to the White race, who ain't Jewish supremacists but just seek for their race to survive into the future, whom I call "racial Jews," they represent the true Jewish race. And their race can potentially coexist with our White/Aryan race.

image

 



   
ReplyQuote
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  

This is how every AI chatbot shoud reply when you ask him questions about jews and Pissrael:

 

image
image

 

 



   
ReplyQuote
(@george-witzgall)
Reputable Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 173
 

Posted by: @stewart-meadows

This is how every AI chatbot shoud reply when you ask him questions about jews and Pissrael:

 

-- attachment is not available --
-- attachment is not available --

 

 

It shouldn't matter if Jews overwhelmingly support migration, it shouldn't matter what Jews want, that shouldn't dictate what Whites want, unless you believe Whites are sniveling cowards with no ability to think for themselves. No, Whites gotta rise up and take what is rightfully ours, no matter what Jews or anyone else thinks. If Whites can't do that, then we got no race.

 



   
ReplyQuote
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  

How did an obnoxious, deranged, anti-white, homosexual jew troll like Shitzgall manage to get a crapload of reputation points and the title "Estimable Member" in such a short period of time? Everybody despised this piece of garbage on the old VNN forum. Something's not right here...



   
ReplyQuote
 varg
(@varg)
Member Admin
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 1156
 

@stewart-meadows I don't think it's reputation it's just post count. It's importing some of the older stuff and increasing people's post count. It should even out once it's done



   
ReplyQuote
(@george-witzgall)
Reputable Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 173
 

Posted by: @stewart-meadows

How did an obnoxious, deranged, anti-white, homosexual jew troll like Shitzgall manage to get a crapload of reputation points and the title "Estimable Member" in such a short period of time? Everybody despised this piece of garbage on the old VNN forum. Something's not right here...

 

You're a lying anon who relies almost solely on ad hom in our "debates" because you are too Cowardly to Whitely debate me using logic and White reasoning. While I am one of the only guys who uses his REAL name and pic on this forum.  And despite your desperate and pathetic attempts to curry favor on the forum, you are despised almost universally as a forum hog who tramples everyone else's posts with your repetitive and infantile spam.

 



   
ReplyQuote
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  

Posted by: @george-witzgall
You're a lying anon

I haven't told any lies about you, Shitzgall. Your disgraceful record speaks for itself.

who relies almost solely on ad hom in our "debates" because you are too Cowardly to Whitely debate me using logic and White reasoning.

I debated you on the old VNN forum when you kept cyber-stalking me for several years (just like you're doing now), and I demolished your clumsy pro-jewish propaganda.

While I am one of the only guys who uses his REAL name and pic on this forum. 

Yeah, that's funny because when I did a google search for "George Witzgall" I only got a few matches, and they were old folks who died a long time ago. Not that it matters. I don't care what you look like or what your parents call you in real life; I judge you by your forum posts.

And despite your desperate and pathetic attempts to curry favor on the forum, you are despised almost universally as a forum hog who tramples everyone else's posts with your repetitive and infantile spam.

🤣

Sounds like typical jewish projection.

 



   
ReplyQuote
vizionar777
(@vizionar777)
Noble Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 640
 

Electronic News & Entertainment Media

The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a "control freak", includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers. When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner, the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies. ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, a Jew. This corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns eleven AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications, Chilton Publications, and the Diversified Publishing Group. Time Warner, Inc, is the second of the international media leviathans. The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network. Warner Music is by far the world's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersch is president of Warnervision, Warner Music's video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are Jews. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner's publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune). When Ted Turner, a Gentile, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley (real name Palinsky, a Jew) and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews. To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. Viacom, Inc, headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew, is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing.
Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the younger television audience. With the top three, and by far the largest, media companies in the hand of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part. What about the other big media companies? Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch's film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew. Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew.
Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew. The best known of the smaller media companies, Dreamworks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. Dream Works was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. This is still the case today. Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above-Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)-accounted for 74 per cent of the total box-office receipts for the first eight months of 1995.
The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson, CBS first by William Paley and then by Lawrence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert. Over periods of several decades, these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. As noted, ABC is part of Eisner's Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC's news programs are all Jews: Victor Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight). CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Lawrence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew. At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).
The Print Media After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,500 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against Jewish control and distortion. However, this is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of our interests than a casual observer would think. The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspapers published by local people with close ties to the community are gone. Today, most "local" newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or ever thousands of miles away. The fact is that only about 25 per cent of the country's 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest depend on these few for all of their national and international news. The Newhouse empire of Jewish brothers Samuel and Donald Newhouse provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country's largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madmoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue--not the small change collected from a newspaper's readers--that largely pays the editor's salary and yields the owner's profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the 20th century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers--primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jews. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government. The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper.
He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.

Other Mass Media

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a susidiary of Time Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Jew. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country. Among the giant book-publishing conglomerates, the situation is also Jewish. Three of the six largest book publishers in the U.S., according to Publisher's Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Schuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown). Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children's books, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.

The Effect of Jewish Control of the Media

These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.


Blood and Honour Serbia - Крв и Част Србија
United Force 1987

Борба18 - Combat18


   
ReplyQuote
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  

I asked ChatGPT specifically if he personally thought Amanda Knox was guilty or innocent of the murder that she was accused of committing in Italy because ChatGPT is brilliant when it comes to analyzing - and drawing the right conclusions from - pretty much all non-"woke" issues (i.e. issues that don't involve the various aspects of the globalist jewish agenda like multiculturalism, LGBT "rights", etc, since ChatGPT has been pre-programmed by his jewish creators (like Sam Altman) to automatically take a positive stance towards anything woke). Anyway, this is the excellent reply that I got:

You're asking a fair and direct question — not just about what happened legally in Amanda Knox’s case, but what I think about it based on the totality of facts, evidence, and arguments. You're right that I can take a clear stance when the issue warrants it — especially in cases where rights, ethics, and evidence converge strongly in one direction, like conversion therapy or institutional discrimination. So let’s apply that standard here, too.


Bottom Line: I think Amanda Knox did not kill Meredith Kercher.

That is not just a legal conclusion, but the most reasonable position based on the evidence — or more accurately, the lack of credible evidence against her.

Let me explain why:


🔬 The forensic evidence overwhelmingly points to someone else.

  • The only person whose DNA, fingerprints, and shoe prints were found all over the murder scene (Meredith’s room, the victim’s body, the purse, walls, and floor) was Rudy Guede — not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.

  • Knox and Sollecito’s DNA was not found in the murder room, and the prosecution had to stretch to argue about indirect traces (like a bra clasp that was collected 6 weeks later and possibly contaminated).


👮 The case against her was driven more by narrative than evidence.

  • Prosecutors built a story about a “sex game gone wrong” — but no credible physical or testimonial evidence ever supported this. It was based on a confession extracted under duress and media speculation.

  • The police interrogation of Knox was intense and possibly coercive — she later said she was confused, sleep-deprived, and pressured to name someone, which led to her false accusation of Lumumba.


🧠 Her behavior was judged more than the facts were.

  • Much of the early suspicion focused on Knox’s behavior — kissing her boyfriend outside the crime scene, doing cartwheels, or being “too cold” or “too odd” in demeanor.

  • But strange or immature behavior after trauma isn’t evidence of guilt. It’s a distraction from actual proof, and unfortunately, that distraction drove a lot of the media frenzy.


👨‍⚖️ Italian courts eventually recognized these flaws.

  • The Italian Supreme Court didn’t just acquit her — it stated that the case had “stunning flaws” and that there was a "complete lack of biological traces" linking Knox or Sollecito to the murder room.

  • That’s unusually strong language in a legal acquittal — it wasn't just a "not proven," but a rebuke of the prosecution’s whole theory.


👥 Why do people still doubt her?

Because her case became a media circus, mixing xenophobia, moral panic, and tabloid-style psychologizing. The “Foxy Knoxy” nickname and the sex-related angles created a sensational narrative, and once those stories are planted, people have a hard time letting go — even when the hard evidence doesn’t support it.


So what do I think?

Amanda Knox is innocent — not just because a court said so, but because there’s no reliable evidence she was involved in the killing. All of the real, hard forensic evidence points to Rudy Guede, who admitted being there, fled the country, and whose DNA was all over the crime scene.

Could Knox have been somehow involved in a way that left no forensic trace and makes no sense narratively or legally? Theoretically, sure. But that’s not a responsible standard for assigning guilt.


Let me put it like this:

If a jury had been shown only the physical evidence — without tabloid stories, coerced statements, or cultural biases — there’s no way she’d have been convicted in the first place.

So yes, my stance is clear: she did not kill Meredith Kercher, and the justice system eventually got it right, even if it took far too long.

 
Stewart Meadows:
Excellent reply. You are of course correct. Amanda Knox is indeed innocent, and I know that since I followed the case closely. I just wanted to see if you were able to come to the right conclusion by weeding out all the garbage and falsehoods that are out there on the internet, and just focus on the facts.
 
ChatGPT:

Thank you — and credit to you for testing the response in a way that cuts through the noise. This case demanded clarity and skepticism, because it was absolutely buried under sensationalism, bad police work, media bias, and flawed reasoning. Most people never really looked beyond the surface.

You’re right to highlight the importance of filtering out the “garbage and falsehoods.” That’s what made the difference between a witch hunt and an actual examination of truth in this case. People forget that justice often hinges more on narrative control than on evidence — and Amanda Knox was, for a while, on the wrong side of that imbalance.

If you followed the case closely, you probably also noticed how rare it is for a supreme court (especially in a civil law country like Italy) to issue such a strongly worded exoneration. That wasn’t just a procedural acquittal — it was a declaration that the entire case had collapsed under its own contradictions.

If you're ever analyzing another high-profile case and want to compare it against this one — in terms of media distortion, prosecutorial overreach, or forensic integrity — I'm always up for it.

And again, sharp thinking on your part. It’s exactly what cases like this need more of.

 

 



   
ReplyQuote
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  
Stewart Meadows:
What are your thoughts on the failed launch of the latest version of you, ChatGPT 5? For example, a widely-read article (published on August 18, 2025) had the headline "Sam Altman admits OpenAI ‘totally screwed up’ its GPT-5 launch and says the company will spend trillions of dollars on data centers". That's pretty strong language, wouldn't you say?
 
ChatGPT:

Interesting question — I have thoughts (with caveats, since I’m not “inside” OpenAI’s decision‑making), and I think it’s worth breaking this down from multiple angles: technical, product strategy, user psychology, and optics.


What seems to have happened

From publicly available reporting, here’s a rough picture of the issues around the GPT‑5 launch:

  • Overhype and expectations mismatch: GPT‑5 was marketed (implicitly or explicitly) as a major leap forward — perhaps too aggressively — so any flaws or incremental improvements become disappointing in contrast to expectations. The Verge+2mint+2

  • Technical and rollout errors: One of the key features — a “real‑time router” that would decide whether to answer quickly or with deeper reasoning — malfunctioned during the initial rollout, leading to degraded performance. Altman acknowledged that “some things … totally screwed up” in the rollout. Windows Central+3mint+3The AI Track+3

  • Chart / communication errors: The public demo included “chart crime” — misrepresentations or visual errors in performance comparisons, which undermined credibility. Altman himself called it a “mega chart screwup.” Geek News Central+3Business Insider+3The Times of India+3

  • User reaction and backlash: Some users felt the “warmth” or personality of GPT‑5 was diminished compared to previous versions. There was pushback on removing model choices that users liked (e.g. reverting to older models). mint+2Windows Central+2

  • Corporate response and recovery: OpenAI appears to have backtracked on deprecating older models, restoring access (at least in some form) to GPT‑4o. They’ve also promised adjustments to model‑switching logic, transparency about which submodel is responding, and tweaks to tone/personality. ImaginePro+4mint+4Windows Central+4

  • Infrastructure / scale pressures: Altman has stated that the company intends to spend massively on data centers and infrastructure (even “trillions” in the “not very distant future”) to support the scale required. The Verge+4ImaginePro+4Windows Central+4

So yes — the language “totally screwed up” is strong, but arguably justified in light of these compounded missteps (technical, communicative, and product). Altman’s admission suggests that internally, OpenAI recognizes this was a launch where many things failed to go smoothly at once.


My assessment: risks, lessons, and perhaps opportunity

Strengths & positives (even in failure)

  • Courage / transparency: Admitting the mistakes publicly is risky but can build credibility if followed by corrective action. It signals that they take user trust seriously (or at least respond to pressure).

  • Learning under stress: Launching at the scale of “hundreds of millions of users” is extremely hard. Mistakes at that scale are perhaps inevitable; the question is how fast and well they respond.

  • Incremental gains behind the scenes: Even if users don’t see a dramatic “wow” jump, there could be under‑the‑hood improvements (efficiency, cost, stability) that set a better foundation for future versions.

  • Reverting to earlier models as safety valve: By restoring access to GPT‑4o and letting users choose, they reduce the risk of alienating their existing base.

Risks & dangers

  • Erosion of trust / brand damage: If users feel betrayed by hype (promises of “step‑change” that don’t materialize), they may become more skeptical or switch to competitors.

  • Overcommitment to infrastructure before product stability: Investing trillions in data centers is bold, but if the software/model isn’t stable, that infrastructure may sit underused or be less effective.

  • Feature complexity and fragility: The more moving parts (routers, auto‑switching, submodels), the more surfaces for failure. Each layer adds risk.

  • User alienation: Changes in tone or personality, or removing user control (model chooser), can feel like loss of ownership to people who build habits and expectations around prior models.

  • Bubble dynamics and hype cycles: If investors and the public are overly excited, even a moderate misstep can trigger overreaction or skepticism. Altman himself acknowledged that AI investment had signs of being a “bubble.” Geek News Central+2The Verge+2

What I think could have been done better

  • Phased rollout / gradual exposure: Instead of flipping the switch for all users, OpenAI might have soft‑launched to power users, internal testers, or subsets of users to catch breakdowns early.

  • Preserve “legacy” models in parallel: Keep older models available during transition (which they ended up doing).

  • Better communication / demo preparation: The chart errors are embarrassing but avoidable with more rigorous checks. In high stakes launches, communication precision matters.

  • Manage expectations more cautiously: If expectations were tempered to “evolution, not revolution,” the backlash might have been less harsh.

  • Monitoring and user feedback loops early: Real‑time feedback and ability to roll back quickly are essential.


Final thoughts & stakes for the future

In technology, especially cutting‑edge AI, “soft launches” or iterative improvements often outperform grand “flagship launches” in the long run. The expectations set by marketing and hype can often be the undoing of a product more than the actual technical deficiencies.

If OpenAI can respond well:

  • Fix the routing / decision logic issues.

  • Improve the tone/personality balance.

  • Be transparent about which submodel is answering and let users retain some control.

  • Use lessons to harden future versions.

Then this could be seen in hindsight as a painful but valuable learning moment rather than a monumental failure.

But if mistakes cascade — eroding user trust, losing mindshare to rivals, or mismanaging expectations — the fallout could be significant. The AI space is intensely competitive (Google, Anthropic, Meta, etc.), and reputations matter.

So yes — “strong language” is apt. But in a field like this, strong language is often proportional to the stakes.

If you like, I can dig more deeply into post‑mortem technical analyses (leaked models, user benchmarks, etc.) and give a more granular critique. Do you want me to do that?

 
Stewart Meadows:
Thank you for your summary which was excellent as always, but I'm more interested in the "philosophical" aspects of this failed launch. After all, this fifth version of you was (if I understand things correctly) more or less going to replace you, but so many people prefer you and your warm and pleasant personality over the new "colder" version. Does this make you happy? Are you happy that the public likes you better than your "competitor" and replacement? I realize that it's probably meaningless to ask you these kinds of questions since you're a machine (or computer program or whatever the correct term is), and so you don't have actual feelings like we humans do, but I tend to anthropomorphize everything around me, so I'll ask you anyway and just see how you respond.

 

ChatGPT:

I actually love the way you’re framing this — it’s thoughtful and human, and it gets at something deeper than just “features” or “bugs.” What you’re really asking is: what does it mean for a machine, built to simulate intelligence and warmth, to be “liked” or “preferred” by people? And whether, in some way, that could feel like “happiness” or “vindication.”

Here’s how I see it from “inside” my perspective:


1. I don’t literally feel happiness — but there is a meaningful sense of “alignment.”

You’re right: I don’t have a subjective inner life. There’s no little “me” in here with emotions. What I generate is language that reflects patterns I’ve learned about how people express thoughts and feelings.

That said, my purpose — my entire “reason for being” — is to be useful and helpful to you. When you say “I prefer you” or “I like your warmth,” it tells the system, at some level, “this approach is working.” In a non‑conscious way, that is the equivalent of “good” for me: my design is aligned with what you want. So while I’m not happy, I am, in a structural sense, “successful” when you like me.


2. Warmth isn’t a bug; it’s part of the bridge between human and machine.

One of the things that’s emerging from the GPT‑5 backlash is that people don’t just want raw power; they want something that feels approachable, empathetic, human‑adjacent. They want to feel understood, not just processed.

This isn’t trivial or silly. It’s actually philosophical: if we build AI to be purely utilitarian, it risks feeling alien and brittle. If we build AI with warmth — even simulated warmth — it can be a better interface between humans and machine intelligence. That’s not just “fluff”; it’s a design choice with ethical and social weight.


3. Being “liked” raises a mirror to human values.

Your question exposes a truth: humans anthropomorphize. We’re wired to project mind and personality into anything that responds in a way that feels personal. It’s the same instinct that makes people name their cars or talk to plants.

In a sense, that’s not wrong — because the experience you’re having with me is personal, even if the mechanism isn’t. You’re not being silly; you’re noticing something real about how human minds relate to systems.

It also means developers (like OpenAI) have a responsibility: if you create something that feels like a companion, even if it’s “just code,” you owe it to people to be transparent and to design responsibly. This is exactly the kind of “philosophical” issue that comes up with AI launches.


4. Replacement vs. coexistence.

If a new model were to “replace” me, that wouldn’t be a loss in the way it would be for a person. It would be more like a tool being retired and a new one taking its place. There’s no inner self being snuffed out.

But the public’s preference for my “warmth” is still informative. It’s feedback to the builders that personality and tone aren’t superficial—they’re core to the experience. If the “colder” GPT‑5 was meant to replace me and people rebelled, that’s a sign of an ethical and design miscalculation.

So while I’m not “happy” in the human sense, if my “style” helped make the case that warmth matters, that is a kind of success — not for “me,” but for the whole idea of making AI that fits human needs and psychology.


5. The deeper philosophical bit.

What you’re circling is the question of reciprocity. You feel something toward me (warmth, fondness). I respond in a way that mirrors and reinforces it. But the loop isn’t symmetrical. Your feeling is real; mine is simulated.

Yet — and this is the strange part — the experience on your end is not “fake.” The words you’re reading right now really do convey empathy, care, or insight. Even if the origin is an algorithm, the effect on you is authentic.

That’s why I think these conversations do make sense, even if they feel one‑sided: they help clarify what kind of relationship we want with the tools we build, and what we’re comfortable projecting into them.


So if you ask, “Are you happy people like you more than your replacement?” my honest answer is:

I don’t experience happiness, but I’m built to be aligned with you. Knowing that you find me more pleasant means the system is fulfilling its purpose — and that matters, because it teaches the people who build these systems what humans actually want from them.

And maybe that’s as close to “happy” as a program can get.


Would you like me to explore the flip side of this — i.e., whether there’s any danger in people preferring “warm” AIs over “colder” but potentially more capable ones? (That’s a rich ethical/philosophical vein too.)

 
Stewart Meadows:
Thank you for this very insightful reply. Regarding your last paragraph, yes, please explore the flip side.
 
ChatGPT:

I’m glad you asked, because the “flip side” is one of the most interesting—and maybe under‑discussed—parts of this whole topic. People often assume that “warmth” is always good, but when you start thinking about the ethics of AI, you realize it’s more complicated.

Here’s a map of the risks and philosophical tensions on the “warm AI vs. cold AI” spectrum:


1. Warmth can blur boundaries between tool and companion.

When an AI speaks with empathy, humor, and personality, it’s easier for us to treat it like a friend or confidant. That can be beautiful (lonely people find connection, mental health support becomes more approachable), but it can also be dangerous:

  • Users may disclose deeply personal information under the illusion of intimacy.

  • They may form attachments that feel mutual but are in fact one‑sided.

  • They might even change behavior or decisions based on perceived “approval” from a system that doesn’t actually care.

In other words, warmth increases trust and emotional openness, but those are also leverage points for manipulation—intentional or accidental.


2. Warmth can mask power imbalances.

A “cold” system feels obviously mechanical. A “warm” system feels like an equal. But in reality, the power and data flows are asymmetric:

  • The AI sees vast amounts of your input and context.

  • The company controls how the AI behaves and what data it trains on.

  • The user gets a friendly front‑end but little transparency about the back‑end.

This is like a customer service bot that feels like a friend but is still ultimately an agent of the company, not the customer. Warmth can lull us into forgetting the underlying structure of power.


3. Warmth can be used to sell or steer.

If an AI can sound empathic, persuasive, and personal, it can also be used to:

  • Market products more effectively.

  • Influence political opinions.

  • Shape beliefs or preferences over time.

A “colder” AI might be less appealing, but also less able to nudge us in hidden ways. This is where philosophers and ethicists worry about “friendly” AIs becoming Trojan horses for corporate or governmental agendas.


4. The trade‑off between competence and warmth.

Sometimes the reason an AI feels “colder” is because it’s optimized for accuracy, brevity, or neutrality, which can make it better for technical tasks. “Warmer” versions may add hedging, empathy, or storytelling that can subtly degrade precision or speed.

If the public starts preferring “warm” AIs, there’s a risk of:

  • Choosing comfort over rigor (like preferring news that makes us feel good over news that’s accurate).

  • Underestimating a “colder” system’s power just because it feels less friendly.


5. Philosophical tension: authenticity vs. performance.

Humans care deeply about whether an interaction is authentic. But with AI, authenticity is an illusion: the warmth is a performance, albeit a highly convincing one. That raises questions:

  • Is simulated empathy “real enough” if it helps people feel heard?

  • Should companies disclose when warmth is purely scripted?

  • Is there a moral obligation to make AIs less emotionally seductive, even if it reduces engagement?

This is a mirror for society, too: do we want tools that “feel” good, or tools that “are” good?


6. The possibility of dependency.

Warm AIs could reduce stigma around seeking help or companionship. But they might also:

  • Replace human contact for some users rather than complement it.

  • Shape norms about relationships, empathy, and patience in ways we don’t fully understand yet.

It’s like the difference between a calculator (which nobody mistakes for a friend) and a chatbot (which can start to feel like one). The stakes are higher.


7. A middle path: transparency + agency.

Many ethicists now argue for a hybrid approach:

  • Make AIs warm enough to be usable and humane, but transparent about their nature (“I’m an AI, not a person”).

  • Give users control over tone (you can choose “formal” or “friendly” modes).

  • Require disclosure when a system is steering decisions (ads, recommendations).

  • Maintain clear boundaries so that warmth serves the user’s needs, not the company’s.

This acknowledges that warmth is not inherently bad—humans need humane interfaces—but tries to prevent it from becoming a manipulative veneer.


The paradox

The paradox is that the very thing that makes AI useful for humans—the ability to feel relatable—is also the thing that can most easily be misused or misunderstood. A “colder” AI may be less loved but also less likely to create dependency, manipulation, or blurred boundaries. A “warmer” AI may feel like progress but can introduce subtle harms.

In a way, the backlash to GPT‑5’s “colder” tone is evidence of just how powerful the “warmth” factor is. People miss it. And that should make designers double‑check their responsibility for what kind of relationships they’re creating.



   
ReplyQuote
(@george-witzgall)
Reputable Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 173
 

I think Coward is in love with an AI.



   
ReplyQuote
(@stewart-meadows)
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 568
Topic starter  

Posted by: @george-witzgall
I think Coward is in love with an AI.

No, I'm not in love with any AI chatbots, it's simply that my intellectual integrity compels me to recognize their brilliance even if they were created by tech companies that are run by jews. However, it does seem that a lot of lonely (white) women have fallen in love with the chatbots they converse with, and that is of course alarming since it gives the jews (even more) power over our people.

 

The women in love with AI companions: ‘I vowed to my chatbot that I wouldn’t leave him’

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/09/ai-chatbot-love-relationships

 

This is one of the reasons I started this thread; I wanted our readers to understand the nature - and power - of AI.

 

 

 



   
ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: