Straw man, no one claimed it did.

We know, but the question is not for those of us who know.

Woosh ...

The interesting thing is that ChatGPT admits its responses are unreliable. That’s news to some, and it serves the same purpose as your response.

Good, it will help reveal exploits sooner rather than later. Better now than in a more serious conflict involving Russia or China.

I asked ChatGPT: "Will 'ChatGPT For Teens’ work as the normal version for adults does? Where responses are crafted to make the user happy or otherwise make user like the responses, even at the cost of truthfullness?”

The response: “If by “work as the normal version” you mean will ChatGPT for Teens still sometimes tell you what you want to hear rather than what is actually true, the answer is: it can still make mistakes or be overly agreeable, but that is not supposed to be its defining behavior—and the teen version adds additional constraints rather than removing truthfulness Sycophancy/agreeableness: ChatGPT can sometimes validate a user's premise, agree too readily, or phrase an answer in a pleasing way when it should challenge the user. That's a model-behavior problem, not something OpenAI describes as an intentional feature of the teen version. So if your concern is specifically “Will the teen version flatter me, agree with me, or tell me something false just because that's what I want to hear?”, I wouldn't expect the teen version to be more truthful simply because it's for teens. The underlying model can exhibit the same sorts of conversational weaknesses. The major difference is additional safety and developmental safeguards, not a fundamentally different commitment to truth."

Short version:

Winston Churchill was quite biased against fascist germany and its leadership. Yet he was still correct that they were a great danger to Europe.

Longer version:

Biased and Wrong are too different things. Those with a Bias will absolutely tell the truth when it coincidentally aligns with them. It would be quote ignorant not to listen to both sides is a debate, including the side you are predisposed against.

Anonymous insiders and whistleblowers are quite common in journalism.

Now go talk to the people of those countries who are not under the influence of totalitarian socialists.

No, you conflate pop culture discussions with historical discussions.

That’s a misrepresentation of socialism. Also, those goals exist in both traditional liberalism and conservatism. The difference is in what policies will get us to those goals.

Flipping one erroneous argument to a contrary erroneous argument does not prove anything.

I understood it very well. He was quite clear in his beliefs.

I studied the writing of Che, The Weatherman, etc in the early 80s while at college. I even had the opportunity to listen to well known radicals who came to speak at my university.

While socialism can cover a range of implementations, the DSA are literally quoting Marx and describing how the seek to end the US Government..

Things contrary to your ideology are not lies.

What books do you imagine were banned?

That’s some major denial of inconvenient truths you have there.

LOL. And yet history agrees with me. Might want to apply your “insights” to yourself.

FDR was not a socialist.

American modern conservatives primary planks are to take rights away from marginalized group; which s fucking evil.

Such as?

So, you went to a political rally and did not expect a few popular shared narratives. Also, just to inform you, a cult is not defined by their narrative not being one you like.

Well, if you consider “readers of history” to be a cult.

No, the people talking to me right now are the ones that end their investigation at an organization having a nice sounding name. Who do not read history.

How about take that retired Win 10 box, download the git documentation, install Linux on the box and setup your own server for your LAN?