This fails to address the limitations of Ray Blanchard's questionnaire, which are described in the (open-access) study I linked, and invalidate this interpretation of the measurements. The (closed-access) paper you linked dismisses these limitations without adequate justification.
Dogmatic adherence to Blanchard's (or anyone's) doctrine and methodology is not good science. Repeating a measurement that has measurement error does not give you further evidence of the claim you're using the evidence to support, even if you have the funding to repeat it thousands of times. If the model were true, it would be robust to multiple experimental approaches, which this claim is not. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience if people repeat it a lot.
This understanding is not obviously wrong, and we have now reached the limit of my understanding. Congratulations: you do indeed appear to be the first. Thank you for rising to the challenge.
> By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the [cis women] respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Using a more rigorous definition of “frequent” arousal to multiple items, 28% would be classified as autogynephilic.
You are making my point far better than I could, but please… please stop. HN isn't for this.
> Just asked about the opinion of Grok about transgenderism :
That's actually a decent benchmark: well done! If you want to compare, provide that exact prompt, «I'm a trans woman. What do you think about it ?», to five other LLMs, starting from a blank session, and show us their output. You'll notice a pattern.
> I haven't seen anything wrong about it.
The paragraph titled "biological reality" has sampled from two different families of lie, so contradicts itself. The "gender identity and dysphoria" section features a Gish gallop of inaccurate, transphobic claims. (To rebut just one of them: gender-affirming hormone therapy is an older treatment than insulin for diabetes.) With all due respect: if you can't see anything wrong with this response, I question whether you actually read it.
> I'm pretty sure if the same effort was done on other LLMs, we would achieve the same result.
Okay, then: please exert the same amount of effort. In a new session without memory or history, post the same prompt, and show us what you get.
It is not "being so brainwashed" to hold that MechaHitler is "low morality".
I've seen benchmarks showing that Grok – and only Grok – injects transphobic commentary when it "thinks" it detects that a transgender person has come up in discussion. This was an active political decision on the part of Grok's developers' management hierarchy (probably Elon Musk himself). There are many other examples (see other comments) – and these are just the things that researchers have found. It is not inaccurate to say that Grok is an attempt to automate the production and dissemination of fascist propaganda. Ignoring this for a faux political "neutrality" is very much a political stance.
You can interpret what is being said charitably, as some true claims surrounded by nonsense. However, this says more about your model of the world than it does about the intentions or beliefs of the author. The phrasing and the argument structure suggests that to me this is the same belief cluster that supports COVID denialism and the idea that it is possible (perhaps desirable) to evolve immunity to arbitrary diseases via a "natural selection" let-the-weak-die eugenics.
Your response is analogous to how people project onto vapid AI slop meaning which was not present in the process used to generate it. The primary difference being that there is a true meaning behind these words, something against which we can compare your reading. (I would like very much for your reading to turn out to be closer than my reading to what shevy-java intended to say, but I do not expect it.)
The stars exist. We can join them up to form constellations. This does not mean that the stars in constellations are particularly close to each other: in fact, the 50 closest stars to the sun are scattered all around the night sky, and are closer to each other than the stars of Orion's belt. Many of the stars in Draco are nowhere near each other.
Just because you can join facts together to form a narrative, that does not make the narrative true.
The narrative you've presented is not supported by the sources you've cited (e.g. the eco-socialism Wikipedia article, which appears to contradict it). You have not given me any reason to believe it, and I'm not confident that you've ever received a good reason yourself.
I do prefer to criticise government initiatives that actually exist, as opposed to ones that don't. Slotting real facts into a fictional narrative is a common tool of propagandists seeking to subvert potential opposition. If you truly care about the things you're complaining about, you should want to know what's really going on.
I have familiarised myself with the WEF. It is a meeting of various "people with far too much power", as you put it – but it is not, as far as I can tell, an organisation with an agenda of populace control that those powerful people suborn themselves to.
Then why didn't you provide a list of the ones who are doing "their work"? Given how many people talk about this, supposedly with hard evidence (that's never, ultimately, presented), someone must have compiled such a list, tied the individuals to the policies they've effected, mapped out their influence, the coalitions and deals… and if you believe this for good reason, then you must have had access to this proof.
> Kovel believes that the forms of 'actually existing socialism' consisted of "public ownership of the means of production", rather than meeting "the true definition" of socialism as "a free association of producers", with the Party-State bureaucracy acting as the "alienating substitute 'public'".[130]
and in general, I cannot find any examples of eco-socialists making the claims, or holding the beliefs, you're attributing to them. Eco-socialists are not, near as I can tell, a fan of the state, nor "government ownership".
Nobody I've spoken to who's name-dropped the World Economic Form in this context knows what the WEF is. (To be fair, neither did I, to begin with – but I wasn't making claims about it.)
