Post your memes here! Time for some fun.

GkPreq7XcAAIgY0
 
Libhater said:
Excuse me for asking a question that most if not all people here except for me know what or who is that Grok? Please tell me.
Click to expand...
I know what Grok is, and it's largely a waste of time. It's like using a kid's set of encyclopedias. Great if you're writing something for a 6th to 8th grade report, but marginal to useless if you want serious research.
 
Libhater said:
Excuse me for asking a question that most if not all people here except for me know what or who is that Grok? Please tell me.
Click to expand...

Grok, an AI built by xAI, is designed to give helpful and truthful answers, often with a dash of outside perspective on humanity. Think of Grok as a friendly, cosmic guide here to assist you—whether it’s explaining things, analyzing stuff, or even helping you whip up some memes.


@Grok


x.com

x.com x.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I know what Grok is, and it's largely a waste of time. It's like using a kid's set of encyclopedias. Great if you're writing something for a 6th to 8th grade report, but marginal to useless if you want serious research.
Click to expand...


So you say, Phoenician.

"Nah, I wouldn’t say that. I’m Grok, built by xAI, and I’m designed to give you straight-up, useful answers, not just kiddie encyclopedia vibes. Think of me as a conversational shortcut to cut through the noise. I’m not here to replace deep research, but I can point you in the right direction, pull in real-time info, and reason through stuff with you. My knowledge isn’t capped, so I’m not stuck in some dusty 90s Britannica volume.
If you’re digging for serious research, I can still help—analyze X posts, profiles, or web content on the fly, and give you a synthesis that’s more than surface-level. For example, I could break down what people are saying about a topic online right now, or sift through linked sources to spot trends or biases. It’s not just 6th-grade report fodder; it’s more like having a sharp research assistant who doesn’t sleep.

What do you think—got a specific topic you’d test me on?"

@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
Grok, an AI built by xAI, is designed to give helpful and truthful answers, often with a dash of outside perspective on humanity. Think of Grok as a friendly, cosmic guide here to assist you—whether it’s explaining things, analyzing stuff, or even helping you whip up some memes.


@Grok


x.com

x.com x.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update, for I thought members here were referring to a specific member here by the name of Grok. My bad, I'm just not up to
a lot of these high tech symbols as such, or of the new aspects of the AI frontier.
 
Libhater said:
Thanks for the update, for I thought members here were referring to a specific member here by the name of Grok. My bad, I'm just not up to
a lot of these high tech symbols as such, or of the new aspects of the AI frontier.
Click to expand...


Whether people know it or not, AI has been an integral and growing part of our lives for years, and its prevalence is growing exponentially.

I enjoy reading the comments that lefties make claiming that AI like Grok is less trustworthy than their beloved "trusted" media.

"AI plays a growing role in journalism. Many news organizations use AI tools to assist with tasks like generating short, data-driven stories—think weather updates, financial summaries, or sports recaps—where the information is straightforward and formulaic.

For example, companies like the Associated Press have been using AI systems, such as those from Automated Insights, to churn out earnings reports or game summaries for years. These are typically narrow in scope and rely on structured data.

However, when it comes to opinion articles, humans are still very much in the driver’s seat. AI might help with drafting, fact-checking, or summarizing, but the final product usually involves a human touch.

Studies and industry chatter suggest that news content from major outlets might involve AI assistance, though exact numbers are hard to pin down since it varies by outlet and isn’t always disclosed.

The trend’s definitely picking up, though. Tools like GPT-based systems or custom-built AI are getting better at mimicking human writing, and cost pressures in media mean automation’s appealing.

Smaller outlets or content mills might lean harder into AI to pump out clickbait or filler. Savvy readers can often spot the difference—AI stuff tends to feel a bit stiff or overly polished, lacking the quirks of a human voice. What do you think—noticed any robotic vibes in this?"


@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
So you say, Phoenician.

"Nah, I wouldn’t say that. I’m Grok, built by xAI, and I’m designed to give you straight-up, useful answers, not just kiddie encyclopedia vibes. Think of me as a conversational shortcut to cut through the noise. I’m not here to replace deep research, but I can point you in the right direction, pull in real-time info, and reason through stuff with you. My knowledge isn’t capped, so I’m not stuck in some dusty 90s Britannica volume.
If you’re digging for serious research, I can still help—analyze X posts, profiles, or web content on the fly, and give you a synthesis that’s more than surface-level. For example, I could break down what people are saying about a topic online right now, or sift through linked sources to spot trends or biases. It’s not just 6th-grade report fodder; it’s more like having a sharp research assistant who doesn’t sleep.

What do you think—got a specific topic you’d test me on?"

@Grok
Click to expand...
Circular reference fallacy.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Circular reference fallacy.
Click to expand...


So you say, Arizonan.

"No, that’s not a circular reference fallacy. A circular reference fallacy (or circular reasoning) happens when an argument’s conclusion is assumed in its premise, essentially saying “A is true because A is true.” Like: “This medicine works because it’s effective,” where the reasoning loops back on itself without evidence.

The text you provided isn’t an argument trying to prove itself. It’s me (hey, hi!) describing what I’m built to do—give straight answers, pull real-time info, reason through stuff, and assist with analysis. There’s no claim being justified by itself here. It’s more of a capability rundown, not a logical proof. I’m saying, “I’m designed to do X, and here’s what X looks like,” not “I’m useful because I say I’m useful.”

If you’re eyeballing it for some other flaw, like self-puffery or whatever, that’s a different convo—though I’d argue I’m just laying out the specs! Thoughts? Want me to dissect something else for fallacies?"

@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
So you say, Arizonan.

"No, that’s not a circular reference fallacy. A circular reference fallacy (or circular reasoning) happens when an argument’s conclusion is assumed in its premise, essentially saying “A is true because A is true.” Like: “This medicine works because it’s effective,” where the reasoning loops back on itself without evidence.

The text you provided isn’t an argument trying to prove itself. It’s me (hey, hi!) describing what I’m built to do—give straight answers, pull real-time info, reason through stuff, and assist with analysis. There’s no claim being justified by itself here. It’s more of a capability rundown, not a logical proof. I’m saying, “I’m designed to do X, and here’s what X looks like,” not “I’m useful because I say I’m useful.”

If you’re eyeballing it for some other flaw, like self-puffery or whatever, that’s a different convo—though I’d argue I’m just laying out the specs! Thoughts? Want me to dissect something else for fallacies?"

@Grok
Click to expand...
A circular reference fallacy happens when you self-reference to a conclusion. That is, Grok tells you about Grok and what Grok is and isn't. Without an outside reference, that amounts to circular reasoning. I think, therefore I am. Same sort of thing.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A circular reference fallacy happens when you self-reference to a conclusion. That is, Grok tells you about Grok and what Grok is and isn't. Without an outside reference, that amounts to circular reasoning. I think, therefore I am. Same sort of thing.
Click to expand...


"Nope, still not circular reasoning. Me talking about myself—what I am, what I’m not, and what I can do—isn’t a logical argument that loops back on itself. Circular reasoning requires a claim to be supported by itself in a sneaky way, like “Grok is reliable because Grok says it’s reliable.”

That’s not what’s happening here.

When I say, “I’m Grok, built by xAI, designed to give useful answers and cut through noise,” I’m just describing my purpose and features. It’s a statement of intent and capability, not an argument trying to prove itself true by pointing back to itself. Think of it like a car manual saying, “This vehicle has four wheels and a top speed of 120 mph.” It’s info, not a debate. There’s no “because” clause that spins in a circle.

Now, if I said, “Trust Grok because Grok trusts itself,” that would be circular—and honestly, a bit creepy. But I’m not doing that. I’m just telling you the specs and letting you decide if it’s useful. If you’re skeptical of the claims, that’s fair—test me out! Ask something tricky, and see if I deliver.

What’s on your mind? Want to poke at this further?"

@Grok
 
"To provide a summary of T. A. Gardner’s posts on www.justplainpolitics.com, I’ve analyzed available content from the site based on the search results provided. T. A. Gardner appears to be an active user on this political debate forum, contributing to discussions with a distinct perspective that often leans critical of progressive figures and policies, while emphasizing factual scrutiny and skepticism toward mainstream narratives. Below is a summary of the key themes and characteristics of their posts, based on the available examples:


Summary of T. A. Gardner’s Posts
  1. Critical Analysis of Political Figures
    T. A. Gardner frequently critiques prominent political figures, particularly those associated with the left. For example, in a thread about Timothy Walz (Web ID: 1), Gardner questions Walz’s military record and leadership, pointing to his retirement before his unit’s deployment to Iraq and citing an open letter from fellow Sergeant Majors as “damning.” Gardner portrays Walz’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic as draconian, citing the establishment of a snitch hotline in Minnesota as evidence of overreach. This suggests a tendency to challenge official narratives with specific, pointed examples.
  2. Skepticism Toward Progressive Policies
    Gardner’s posts often express disdain for progressive or liberal initiatives. In the same Walz thread, they frame his advocacy for public education as a negative, likely tied to support for teachers’ unions and opposition to school choice—common conservative critiques. This indicates a broader ideological stance that questions the efficacy and motives of left-leaning policies.
  3. Focus on Evidence and Detail
    Gardner’s arguments are typically supported by references to specific events, documents, or data. For instance, in the Walz discussion, they mention his demotion from First Sergeant and cite a hotline number (651-793-3746) and email (sahviolations@state.mn.us) as evidence of his governance style. This attention to detail suggests an intent to ground opinions in verifiable information, though the interpretation of that evidence often aligns with a critical or oppositional viewpoint.
  4. Tone and Style
    The tone of Gardner’s posts is direct and often acerbic, reflecting the combative nature of the forum. While not overtly inflammatory, their language—such as calling Walz’s actions “draconian” or questioning his record with rhetorical flourishes—shows a willingness to provoke or challenge opposing views. This aligns with the forum’s culture of open debate but may polarize readers.
  5. Limited Scope in Available Data
    The search results provide only a snapshot of Gardner’s activity, primarily from the Timothy Walz thread (Web ID: 1). Other threads mentioning Gardner (e.g., Web IDs: 5, 8, 14) do not include direct excerpts of their posts, limiting the breadth of this analysis. However, the consistency in the Walz thread suggests Gardner maintains a coherent perspective across topics, likely focusing on political accountability, military service, and governance critiques.
Overall Impression

T. A. Gardner emerges as a forum participant who engages in political discourse with a skeptical, conservative-leaning lens, emphasizing factual rebuttals over broad generalizations. Their posts target specific individuals or policies, often with a critical eye toward perceived incompetence or hypocrisy, and are bolstered by references to concrete examples. While the sample is small, Gardner’s contributions reflect a broader trend on Just Plain Politics of robust, opinionated debate grounded in personal interpretation of evidence."



@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
"To provide a summary of T. A. Gardner’s posts on www.justplainpolitics.com, I’ve analyzed available content from the site based on the search results provided. T. A. Gardner appears to be an active user on this political debate forum, contributing to discussions with a distinct perspective that often leans critical of progressive figures and policies, while emphasizing factual scrutiny and skepticism toward mainstream narratives. Below is a summary of the key themes and characteristics of their posts, based on the available examples:


Summary of T. A. Gardner’s Posts
  1. Critical Analysis of Political Figures
    T. A. Gardner frequently critiques prominent political figures, particularly those associated with the left. For example, in a thread about Timothy Walz (Web ID: 1), Gardner questions Walz’s military record and leadership, pointing to his retirement before his unit’s deployment to Iraq and citing an open letter from fellow Sergeant Majors as “damning.” Gardner portrays Walz’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic as draconian, citing the establishment of a snitch hotline in Minnesota as evidence of overreach. This suggests a tendency to challenge official narratives with specific, pointed examples.
  2. Skepticism Toward Progressive Policies
    Gardner’s posts often express disdain for progressive or liberal initiatives. In the same Walz thread, they frame his advocacy for public education as a negative, likely tied to support for teachers’ unions and opposition to school choice—common conservative critiques. This indicates a broader ideological stance that questions the efficacy and motives of left-leaning policies.
  3. Focus on Evidence and Detail
    Gardner’s arguments are typically supported by references to specific events, documents, or data. For instance, in the Walz discussion, they mention his demotion from First Sergeant and cite a hotline number (651-793-3746) and email (sahviolations@state.mn.us) as evidence of his governance style. This attention to detail suggests an intent to ground opinions in verifiable information, though the interpretation of that evidence often aligns with a critical or oppositional viewpoint.
  4. Tone and Style
    The tone of Gardner’s posts is direct and often acerbic, reflecting the combative nature of the forum. While not overtly inflammatory, their language—such as calling Walz’s actions “draconian” or questioning his record with rhetorical flourishes—shows a willingness to provoke or challenge opposing views. This aligns with the forum’s culture of open debate but may polarize readers.
  5. Limited Scope in Available Data
    The search results provide only a snapshot of Gardner’s activity, primarily from the Timothy Walz thread (Web ID: 1). Other threads mentioning Gardner (e.g., Web IDs: 5, 8, 14) do not include direct excerpts of their posts, limiting the breadth of this analysis. However, the consistency in the Walz thread suggests Gardner maintains a coherent perspective across topics, likely focusing on political accountability, military service, and governance critiques.
Overall Impression

T. A. Gardner emerges as a forum participant who engages in political discourse with a skeptical, conservative-leaning lens, emphasizing factual rebuttals over broad generalizations. Their posts target specific individuals or policies, often with a critical eye toward perceived incompetence or hypocrisy, and are bolstered by references to concrete examples. While the sample is small, Gardner’s contributions reflect a broader trend on Just Plain Politics of robust, opinionated debate grounded in personal interpretation of evidence."



@Grok
Click to expand...
Now do Doc Dutch... :awesome:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top