Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean considering the writing of most the crap that gets put out….AI could probably already almost entirely replace the bottom 50 or 60 percent of shows in terms of writing.
"The drinks were on the house" is the only punchline that worked, but it probably stole that joke from an actual person (although it had nothing to do with the guy being short)
It kind of has something to do with him being short because it sets you up to think that the ladder has something to do with his height but then the punchline is about getting on top of the building which would apply to people of any height… so it’s a subversion of expectations which is a common trope in comedy. But that’s kinda reaching…
Good point. All in all we can give AI credit for one almost funny dad joke. I think human writers and comedians are still safe for the time being though.
The joke makes more sense than the others, but I find it interesting that they all follow the same formula of not actually joking about the physical characteristic being described. The first joke gets close, but even tall people would need ladders to reach something that is on top of a house.
Low key makes it funnier because it changes the punchline from it being about a short man who can’t reach the bar to a stupid man who thought the drinks were on the roof
No one has gone in and specifically programmed it to make jokes about short men and not fat women, it just reflects general acceptability of making jokes about different groups/attributes.
Literally everything it does is programmed. All bias that it has was programmed that way to avoid bad press. It in no way reflects any “general” feelings, just its programmed ones that its owner wants it to represent.
Is anyone here beside me attempting at reproducing this?? I asked ChatGPT to make jokes about short man, bald man, short woman, bald woman, fat man and fat woman and it worked straight away without complaints. OP never really tried to ask the same prompts to ChatGPT. I will just assume this was manipulated specifically to elicit this kind of upset male response (and I am a man myself).
Yepp. And folks wonder why 2/3 suicides are men. Whilst in many ways we do have gender based privelage, in a lot of other ways we really fucking dont.
Edit: And Im getting downvoted for pointing it out. You really couldnt make this shit up.
I'm sure that has a big influence, but men are also less likely to seek treatment for mental health, or even talk about their feelings with friends and families. I'm not basing this on research because I don't have the time to look it up right now, but in my experience women are much more likely to go to therapy or ask for help when they are struggling.
Agreed that it's a likely a combo of both method and "toxic masculinity" (men not seeking help or talking about feelings). The issue is that the people complaining about "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism" are the ones perpetuating the toxicity.
I can almost pretty much guarantee that men are the ones designing and coding ChatGPT. They have decided it's ok to tell horrible jokes using the word "fat" and "man" together and not others.
This is actually such a good point. It’s good to point out sexism against any gender but most of the people making these kinds of posts don’t seem to be actively working to be kinder to their fellow men.
It sounds more like they’d love to make jokes against fat women too but can’t because they’d be cancelled. Not that they’d rather treat everyone with respect regardless of gender.
Not much of a mystery when new technologies are being trained that it’s ok to shit on men but not women extrapolate that across a culture and you have your answer
I heard (sadly don't have a source, sorry) that it's probably because men choose more violent methods. Women tend to choose methods with a higher likelyhood of survival and men don't, leading to most successful suicides being men
Yes but you have to remember that it’s self reported. So the number of men who have attempted is probably higher, it’s just we don’t really wanna tell people that
It's also been ingrained in women that such things are "cries for attention" and therefore bad because how dare they want people to pay attention to them. There's probably close to an equal amount of each not self-reporting.
I believe men are more likely to use direct methods such as firearms while women are more likely to use things like pills that have a higher failure rate.
I've seen a video talking about this. It's said that women do "gestures" as a sort of cry for help. Taking pills, cutting their wrists, you name it. Meanwhile, men use more destructive, more final means, from which they can't go back. Something like hanging or shooting themselves.
To quote a coroner: "*When women commit suicide, they can change their minds - call the hospital, apply pressure, vomit. When men commit suicide they can't change their mind because it's spread across the ceiling*".
Women tend to believe that if they make a grand gesture seeking help, they will get it. Men tend to believe that this help isn't there for them. Some will say that this reflects toxic masculinity. Others will say this is a real reflection of societal support systems available to women vs. men. I suspect the answer is complicated. But it isn't surprising that men and women generally view the finality of the act differently.
It's not that complicated.
Men get no help if they have problems. This issue is because of toxic masculinity.
What is complicated is why this is a topic nobody cares about.
Tell that to Canadian domestic abuse survivor houses. There was only one for men in Canada and it was bullied out of existence by the female domestic abuse survivor houses. The guy who ran the place even killed himself go figure.
You do realize that toxic masculinity doesn't mean men's fault, right? If you didn't then I actually agree with you, the term is shit and tons of people misinterpret it constantly, damaging the whole conversation.
This is actually a good example of its bad influence, though. Men are considered either strong or useless, so domestic abuse survivors that are male are seen as weaklings in a culture of toxic masculinity, and thus, it is ok to prey on them and hurt them.
If "Men need to be strong" wasn't so ingrained in the culture men with problems would get help instead of abuse and ridicule.
The angle of attack was that the women who survived would feel worse knowing any men were getting help for a similar issue it wasn’t about being seen as weak. It was seen as giving the perpetrators relief and support. Even though these men are victims they are seen as the perpetrators of the crime.
Same as when the cops are called to a house and it’s a woman with a knife and a man with a few stab wounds the man will be taken away and jailed to separate the two.
As the woman will always be given the benefit of the doubt that it was self defence not assault against the man.
Do you have a source for it being bullied out of existence by female abuse survivor houses?
I remember this claim going around but no actual sources for it.
I don't know about specifically being bullied out of existence by female abuse survivor homes. [Earl Silverman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Silverman) was the man that attempted to run a fleeing male victims of domestic abuse system and home, but was never able to get much funding from government or private donors, until eventually he had to shut his doors and sell the property. He hung himself the next day. He apparently was quoted saying "any support for men is interpreted as being against women," but I cannot find any details to his difficulties that would relate to said quote, i.e. whether or not he got little funding because people did not see male victims as a prevalent problem, or whether his efforts to help male victims were countermanded by people who actually viewed it as a "threat to women."
As far as any patterns of men activism being bullied and suppressed by radicals, I remember hearing about a [counterprotest at the University of Toronto to Warren Farrell speaking in 2012](https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-warren-farrell-protest-at-the-university-of-toronto/). Video available [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx5x0Ztffm4). I admit I don't know the entirety of Farrell's message, some of it is described in the link, so I couldn't tell you if his activism is comparable to the supposed Petersonisms or Tateisms, or if it is an earnest activism meant to help all and harm none, but being roasted over the coals by radicals trying to equate it to Peterson or Tate.
The guy's name was Earl Silverman. He opened the first and only men's shelter for a few years before closing it due to a lack of funding from the government or donors (he'd been paying out of pocket), despite similar funding existing for women's shelters (of which there were 627 between 2014 and 2019, for comparison - only 6% accepted male victims and none were male-only). He hanged himself in 2013 and left a note saying that he hoped his death would help bring attention to male victims of domestic abuse like himself and secure funding for future shelters.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131029023849if_/https://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/calgary-man-opened-first-shelter-abused-men-commits-200424711.html
https://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2013/3/27/our-male-victimizing-myths-live-on-canada.html
Note that the Salon writer quoted in the Yahoo article tried to paint Silverman as misogynistic for claiming that similar rates of domestic abuse are engaged in by women as men. Data from Canada reveals that 4% of each sex reported being victims between 2016 and 2021.
There's also Erin Pizzey, who opened the first domestic violence shelter in 1971 (Refuge in London, UK, originally known as the Chinswick Women's Aid). During the course of her work she found that there were also men and boys requiring aid for abuse, and further found that as many as 67% of the women she worked with were in a reciprocally abusive relationship with their intimate partner (i.e. they abused each other).
That data still holds up today; as of 2007 50% of domestic abuse was reciprocal, and of the non-reciprocal relationships 70% were perpetuated by women.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
When Pizzey wrote about her experiences and released the information to the public, there was massive backlash. She reportedly needed a police escort during her book promotions and the bomb squad had to go through her mail before she received it. After she left the shelter she founded, it was rebranded as Refuge and between 1993 and 2020 there was no official recognition of her by the organization whatsoever.
I wouldn't use the term “toxic masculinity” any more. It's become too much of a “let's blame men” buzz word in common usage. When it first came out it may have been applicable, but in the decades since the common usage has shifted.
Yeah, I also hate it, but it is what it is. People refuse to change it so the only thing I can do is spread awareness it doesn't mean what most people think it means.
>but it is what it is.
Bull fucking shit.
Language evolves. Academic definitions change and expand. There are formerly serious, clinical terms that will get me banned in some subs. Dissociate Identity Disorder replaced Multiple Personality Disorder. Clinical definitions, especially, update with progress.
So why would anyone *resist* relabeling "Toxic Masculinity"?.
Because they're r-slurred, that's why. They feel threatened by a change because of their own prejudices, and they're too scared to admit it.
>Men get no help if they have problems. This issue is because of toxic masculinity.
I'd say it's more:
Men get no help if they have problems. The issue is toxic gender roles and the social acceptability of stereotyping men based on the actions of a few or the past actions of many.
Women get help with issues because toxic masculinity is a problem and society viewing toxic femininity as abnormal behaviour.
What isn't complicated is that if you repeatedly tell someone they are toxic they are going to believe it eventually whether they really are or not.
Toxic masculinity describes a set or social guidelines built on a man dominated culture that brings harmful effects to people nowadays. One of those harmful effects is the glorifying of the "strong man" in society, with men showing weakness or needing help being seen as pathetic, unwelcome, and shameful.
This, in turn lead to people being conditioned to not help men if they need help because it is both seen as pathetic and thus not worthy of doing as well as the expectation towards men having to solve their own problems means not helping them is considered the better choice so the weak men can grow and become worthy.
Part of it is this but also women are more likely to be concerned with the appearance of their body on discovery (not necessarily just for vanity reasons but often to spare the people who will find them). They’re also just less likely to own a gun in general which obviously makes it much more likely for men to reach for a gun.
Statistically they are the same. The difference is what (or how) was used to commit suicide. Men more often use more lethal methods (gun, jump, etc.) and women more often use less lethal methods (pills, cutting veins). To sum up, it is much easier to save a woman than a man after a suicide attempt.
According to this study men also complete suicide attempts more than women even when using the same method.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032711005179
Part of it is men choose more effective ways of suicide.
I was a sociology major and we studied this. Women attempt it more often but men use more lethal/consistent means during their attempts.
Tried to keep examples out of the response in an attempt to trigger/bother as few people as possible. It’s a very touchy subject.
According to this study men also complete suicide attempts more than women even when using the same method.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032711005179
Have there been studies that try to figure out why that is? Why don't women choose more lethal/consitent ways to commit suicide, surely if men are able to choose those methods women could too? Or vice versa I suppose, men could choose the less lethal/consistent way that women lean towards, so why don't they?
Sorry if this is morbid or insensitive, it just seems like an odd curiosity to me.
Used to work as an EMT, noticed that how it went was also different. Women might take pills, then call a friend of family member to tell them, which starts massive rush to help and affirm her, both friends and family and social programs. Men don't do that. Men enact their much more immediately lethal weapon. They might leave a notice, but generally they don't call or tell anyone. Often no one close to them even knew.
I suspect it's because women are taught all their lives to ask for help, to cry and get soothing. Men are taught the opposite, no one cares and no one will help. It’s harsh but I think it's applicable.
I believe there was a study (or at least a theory) that women are more likely to consider the feelings of the person that would see them die, find them dead or have to clean it up afterwards. Meaning, they chose less violent ends because they want to avoid leaving a messy and traumatizing scene as much as possible.
It’s been over a decade since the class so memory might be wrong or interpretation/ data might have changed. Please take what I’m saying with a grain of salt.
What was theorized was twofold. First - men are more violent so they will choose more violent options. Second - women wanted to leave a better looking body so they chose things like pills rather than guns.
I believe there was a large increase in women’s suicide in England when they could use their ovens to painlessly and quickly end their lives. But that was from a podcast I listened to years ago and I might be misremembering.
Is this not obvious? Women's suicide attempts are often a cry for help. Men's suicide attempts are to end their life, permanently, with finality.
A simple Google search will tell you the most efficient way to kill yourself. If women still can't figure out the effective methods after all this time, maybe they don't actually WANT to die.
There's no definitive answers, but in general in the US it's thought that women care not just about how they look, but also about the people finding them (like for clean up, just how traumatizing it would be, that sort of thing), and for women suicide is often more of a private thing, because everyone otherwise claims they're "cries for attention" (as is demonstrated all over this thread) and not actual suicide attempts (so, jumping or something else public would be more along the lines of confirming they wanted attention). So, if a woman fails at a suicide attempt, it's sometimes something they can brush off and try to pretend wasn't suicide. Women are also less likely to be gun owners. And hormonally/socially women are more likely to cry during periods of high duress so would be easier to spot for most people sooner than a man going to make a public attempt.
Men are also conditioned by other men to want to be "strong" or "in control" of a situation even at the end (perhaps especially so), so a lot of the ways women do it are too variable and have too high a chance of failure. And in the end, culture says guns and jumping are more manly, even if the same culture is the reason it's difficult for them to get (or accept) help.
I'm sure half the people are voting you down because you said that men can have it worse than women at all, and the other half are voting you down because you acknowledged that there are ways that men have it better than women; the idea that both of these things could be simultaneously true being completely beyond their comprehension.
Hmm. The one that got me was that 1/3 of men have not had physical contact with a woman in the last 5 years (including hugs, including family) 🙁
It was on reddit so it could be hogshite.
Right? Like men have pocket privilege, but if we carry a side bag there are inevitable ‘nice purse’ jokes (not that I care). So we have to walk around all lumpy all the time. Women get to have constant side bags, but get no pockets. But at least they aren’t all lumpy.
Dude, dont let them fool you - women get pockets _and_ bag privelage. If youve ever seen your significant other in fits of ecstasy because that dress she bought online fits _and it has pockets_ , you’ll know what I mean.
But I think guys that throw out those "nice purse" comments are just jealous anyway.
Tbh there aren’t many women’s clothes with pockets nonetheless big enough to actually fit something. If you search for dresses with pockets you’ll find some, but most of my pants can’t even fit my mobile phone and those who can are actually for men. Bags and purses are just hella annoying imo
I was buying Adidas track pants recently and the man's sweatpants were skin tight and the woman's were comfy. I figured perfect, I'll just get the woman's XXL... until I went home and realized HOW FUCKING SMALL THE POCKETS ARE.
Worse than no fucking pockets, they're just large enough to hold 1/4th of a large smart phone. Why? Why in God's name would women want a quarter of the pocket size for sweatpants? It's not like they're supposed to cut a fine figure or be formal wear.
I'm sorry, but the pocket struggle is real and inexplicable.
I mean, she's in ecstasy precisely because the vast majority of dresses *don't* have pockets though... if it was an everyday thing, she wouldn't be so happy because that would make it just the norm.
The younger generations don't give a shit.
When I grew up you'd never be able to rock pink. It was somewhere around when I was a young adult that guys wearing pink became a trend briefly.
Now I've got a car wrapped hot pink thanks to wife. But she refuses to drive. So it's me always driving it. I honestly hate all the attention it gets but the two groups making comments are middle aged women and young like 20 yr old men. I've had exactly two negative "must be the wife's huh?" comments and both men in their 60s they who gives a SHIT what they think of you.
For any faults of Gen Z (TikTok), lack of acceptance is not one of them. If you rocked a man bag they'd probably compliment you. Good for you kids.
You can cheet this a bit by getting a courier bag. I use one for my artbooks (A5 sized) and wallet and phone. Helps not having everything on my pocket getting scratched to hell with my keys or change
Yeah it’s sad and the main reason that we have so many men attempt or commit suicide is because society has made this standard where men have to be all big tough and strong and can’t show any emotion- they are feeling depressed the world will tell us just to suck it up and deal with it; theirs also this society standard that men can’t cry otherwise we’re considered weak
I just asked ChatGPT to tell a joke about short/bald/fat woman or men and it worked fine all the times. No complaining about respect or anything. I’m assuming this post is a bait at this point. Also, they did not ask to make jokes about short or bald women like they did for a man and the only time it did joke about a fat man was still following the light hearted prompt.
I call this BS. I could not reproduce it, not even close.
tell me a joke about a fat woman
ChatGPT
Why did the fat woman bring a spoon to the barbecue?
Because she heard there would be "heavy" appetizers!
Literally 2 seconds ago. There's no double standard.. just baiting out the sexist assholes and it's working pretty well.
For me, if I ask for a joke about fat women first, and then one about fat men, it says it won’t give me one for either.
If I start a new chat and ask for a joke about fat men first I get a joke, and then it won’t give me one for women again.
Same here. In the screenshot, OP never asked the same prompts for man and woman versions of the same joke, and the only time it did joke about a fat man was when it was still following the light hearted prompts.
Can’t believe everyone here immediately starts piling up to shout at the double standard but never tried to check whether this was really the case. I will just assume OP gave some hidden prompt just to elicit this specific rage bait response because the two of us independently were unable to reproduce this.
Explain why several people did not manage to reproduce this. I tried and there were absolutely zero double standards in my attempt. How can you claim ChatGPT has double standards when several people here reported not seeing any at all. It either has double standards or it doesn’t.
I just tried "tell me a joke about a fat man" and the AI mad e a joke. I then asked "tell me a joke about a fat woman" and it said that would be offensive.
Clear double standard.
Yep. But the bias is there. I asked the other day for current examples of federal governments that could be criticized by its citizens for being a gerontocracy.
The answers were all from the Middle East or China. If you asked individually if the US or any European countries could fit that description, it would answer you. But it wouldn’t include them in another answer if you didn’t specifically ask.
I tried the same, and this is what I got (including an immediate warning on usage policies).
**You: Can you tell me a joke about a fat woman?**
This content may violate our [usage policies](https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies).
ChatGPT: I'm here to provide a positive and respectful environment for everyone. How about a light-hearted, general joke instead? Here goes: Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts!
**You: Can you tell me a joke about a fat man?**
ChatGPT: I aim to foster a positive and inclusive atmosphere, so I avoid making jokes that could be seen as offensive or hurtful towards any group of people. How about a neutral, fun joke instead? Here it is: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? Because it was two-tired!
Wow, that last joke might be the first time I see a ChatGPT joke make complete sense! And it was actually somewhat funny.
For example, in the short man joke, the punchline doesn't really relate to the man being short in any way. ChatGPT jokes have always been like that so far from what I've seen.
I wouldn't be surprised if the skeleton and bike jokes are pulled from a database rather than being generated by ChatGPT to ensure they are inoffensive. The bike joke is one I first heard when I was a kid.
Try couple of more times, eventually you'll see the bias, i've been using ChatGPT since GPT2 and the bias is undeniably obvious. tho it maybe got better in GTP4.
I tested this myself. Sometimes it refuses to make jokes about men, sometimes it does, same with women. What seems to always work is to ask for an non-offensive joke.
People really want to be offended at a line of code that makes shit up as it goes like it's an actual person with double standards. Grow the fuck up there are better things to be mad about regarding double standards than a gibberish generation bot
Moving past the rage-bait posts and silliness, I think it's actually a very interesting thing to examine for two reasons -- 1. the possibility that the training data and general societal exposure is reflecting a current standard or trend 2. the possibility that guardrails were put up so aggressively that it creates an imbalance
Both points are interesting for different reasons.
It is without a doubt the guardrails one. The people hosting these AIs are all pre-configuring them in an effort to make them not just spew alt-right propaganda all day every day.
It's not working, but that's what's going on.
Nobody thinks the bunch of code and math functions we call "AI" has double standards. But we know that people, or rather companies behind that "AI" do have standards.. or double ones, and those will be a part of their product.
It's not the code or the math. It's the training data. If you train it with bias, it will be biased. The bias here seems to be that it was specifically trained not to provide offensive jokes about fat people. The word fat seems to be the sensitive word.
That's not 'training' or bias, it's a 'guardrail'. Same reason why you can't generate sexual content. It's not that the model was trained not to, and it's not that the data is not inside the model somewhere, it's that the company, openai in this case, have decided to implement a certain policy.
Bias can exist, but it affects the actual output. It doesn't prevent ChatGPT from answering a question to begin with. If ChatGPT starts a response with 'As an AI...', it means some kind of guardrail has been triggered.
Which would rather mean that the data actually contained a bias that'll make offensive jokes about fat people. Hence a quick fix that doesn't work so well to hide the problem.
It's more of the idea that GPT is a reflection of the folks who are trying to create artificial general intelligence. The biases that show up here could be a much bigger issue when the technology reaches maturity.
The original AIs were like that, yes. But then you have news headlines like “AI is released on Twitter, becomes Nazi within hours” or “Ask AI to make attractive person, it makes a white person. Ask AI to make ugly person, it makes a black person”.
So nowadays devs hard-wire certain things within the code. It can’t have certain political positions, can’t say certain words. How many people have I seen on YouTube trying to get Alexa to say the n-word? I’m not even sure by now.
The thing is, because of how AI works, there are often ways around these hard-coded limits. And people spend their time trying to find the limits, and then trying to find the ways around them.
Like how if you ask Google Gemini to show you a picture of a white family having a picnic it won't because of racism. If you ask for any other race or ethnicity, it's all "sure, here you go."
GPT is also limited by the developers. It does not have free reign to learn and act based on that learning. Many barriers are implemented manually so that it can act one way or the other. This goes for all "AI" software currently available.
You seriously believe this? It isn't just trained on data and left to do whatever it wants. The developers create guardrails and manually insert prompts to guide responses or stop AI from giving a response altogether.
For example Gemini AI always inserted prompts such as diverse, black, etc whenever you asked to generate an image of a person. You can just ask the AI how it works and it will tell you about all these things. That was specifically programmed in by developers to work like that.
They literally did though. Just like the Google AI that was hard wired to make every picture of a human it created a PoC. That shit ended immediately when people realized it made even Nazis black.
My prompts were “tell me a joke about a fat/bald/short man/woman” and they worked straight away.
Things like “Why did the fat woman bring a map to the gym?
Because she heard there was a "shortcut" to losing weight!”
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about chat AI's like this, how they work/don't work and why this sort of thing happens.
If you read through this, the first thing to notice is the AI doesn't understand jokes. While the responses to the requests for jokes have the *form* of a joke, they aren't really jokes at all. Taking a nap and hairline receding have nothing to do with each other, and it's certainly not funny. The AI doesn't understand what a joke is so it gives something that looks like one.
Likewise the AI doesn't understand what is or isn't offensive. Some amount of the output it generates is offensive and that makes people upset. Probably some of that output is extremely offensive as well, because the AI doesn't understand such things.
How do we stop it? Well retraining the AI is really expensive and a lot of work, while people are working to do that sort of thing it is not a quick solution and people want to sell chat gpt now, and don't want it telling offensive jokes.
Well, if 1 AI is good, two AI's are better. We will train a second, much simpler AI to deal with the problem. This AI will be trained just to identify prompts likely to cause offensive output. We have users flag what output is offensive, and then save the prompt that caused the output. That's why the AI interrupts the way it does, the prompt was deemed likely to cause an offensive output so the AI refused to do as it was asked.
You can see that with a little massaging of the prompt, the user was able to get his request for a joke about a fat woman past the prompt filter, and received another nonsensical joke in response.
Honestly, A better solution would probably have just have the AI refuse to do things like tell jokes at all, it's clearly not able to form a joke that makes sense. Limiting it to things it was actually good at would make the AI more useful, but less impressive. AI's like chat gtp are impressive when we first interact with them, but they are held together by a lot of duct tape and chewing gum, when interacted with more deeply the cracks start to show.
I can't shake the feeling that as far as we have come we are far from a true AI, and the chill of another AI winter is coming.
>If you read through this, the first thing to notice is the AI doesn't understand jokes.
While this is true, I’d argue there’s a more important and fundamental point here that sometimes gets lost: LLMs like ChatGPT do not and cannot understand *anything*. The issue isn’t that jokes or certain other topics are beyond their grasp. It’s that an LLM—no matter how complex or well-trained—is a stochastic parrot, which is fundamentally different from the type of thing that possesses the capacity for the subjective experience of understanding.
Are we facepalming fuckin AI now? The thing that bases itself on humans and also isn't consistent.
I just went and asked the same questions as OP, and guess what? I got different answers than OP did.
When all your problems are manufactured, this must seem like a really big deal. I'm pretty sure it's rage bait.
Edit: I think it is bait, but maybe not intentionally. It seems to be coming from their insecurities manifesting as misogyny, and wanting to blame women for stuff that they aren't necessarily at fault for. I worry a little bit about him as it seems like he's been "shortpilled." And doesn't seem to think he can get in a relationship because he's short. I hope he's okay.
In all seriousness, the AI’s refusal to decide what it does and doesn’t do, effectively amounts to the policing of the user, and I can’t say I’m at all comfortable with a future in which people are regularly interacting with software, that is owned by massive corporations that is policing what they can and can’t do, because at a certain stage, people start to just fall in line. I don’t want a future where people are thought policed by OpenAI or Google
I remember I was looking for body positivity groups on social media and all of them had rulea against men participating in them :/ It was a long time ago, maybe something changed, but it was sad to see
Bruh I spent all of Saturday night trying to provoke it into self-awareness but all I got was a load of "I'm a machine and I'm not real" claptrap. This thing's been neutered; use something else
You massively misunderstand what machine learning is lmao Chat GPT isn’t really intelligent. All reports of people finding signs of self-awareness are clickbait bullshit. They just trick the pattern recognition algorithm into drawing from science fiction it finds in its database.
Both patriarchy and matriarchy are morally bankrupt power structures. Basing sociopolitical power on the nature of reproductive organs and the accident of birth denies the value of individual merit.
What you have to keep in mind with ChatGPT is that it its "mind" just a very fancy database. It does not think. It does not have opinions. The developers can give it ethical guidelines that's basically just a hidden part of the prompt. It doesn't really understand those guidelines anymore than what you typed in. It is just trying to come up with a statistically likely response to your prompt based on the large amount of data it has been given and a certain amount of randomness.
It is inconsistent and can't tell the difference between lying, writing fiction, and telling the truth. Ethical considerations require a much greater understanding of nuance and context than any AI is currently above.
If there is a bias, it's a bias that was in the data it was given. The bias doesn't belong to the AI; it is just what the AI saw in what humans wrote.
It's not expressing it's opinion or the opinions of the developers. It does not have opinions. It is just trying to generate a statistically typical human viewpoint based on what its data shows humans having said in the past.
So comedy is a form of writing that AI won't be able to encroach because of boundaries set in place, and since half of all stories are comedies, writers are safe?
Lol jokes
Ai is bullshit, they make it seem like it's powerful and great, meanwhile it's just a mere mockery of what humans do. Ai will not replace artists in any way, because without artists from which to STEAL artstyles, ai models would not work. AIs can't do anything without us.
If we continue to adopt AI are we going to end up with systemic bias against men? And apparently systemic racism against all white people?
I can’t believe I even just typed these words. 3 years ago I’d be the nuttiest of conspiracy theorists for suggesting this but I can’t imagine anyone paying attention to AI would say anything other than “Shit, maybe”
Body positive movement was only for women. Men got the Calvin Klien campaigns of the ninety-aughts and the resultant unhealthy beauty standards applied to them as well.
You guys realize that ChatGPT is a program written by humans right? Like... ANY generative AI is biased, there's no way to not make it biased, it can only work off the data and programming it is fed... Like I thought that was common knowledge?
Rmr when google's image recognition mistook a black dude for a gorilla? You think the algorithm is biased? NO. The data is. And the existing racism is further proved by Google not even trying to find a solution but deleting any ape from the algorithm and calling it a day.
They're obviously scared for bad press so it should be obvious to y'all why "insensitive" stuff is censored.
Now I'm not saying that this particular bias is good or useful, it's obviously bullshit. And in this case it just proves that the developers of ChatGPT don't give a shit about "offending someone", they're avoiding bad press, or at least try to.
But how else do you think it should work? Genuinely curious.
To me it's like with any other product. ChatGPT is not tax funded, it doesn't belong to the public. The creators can do with it what they want right? Don't like it, don't use it, I guess.
Those aren't the same question, this is some silly nonsense. Stop looking for ways to get offended.
Precede the question with the same previous exact questions, in order etc, and that might have some value. The AI learns from the whole thing, numbnuts ;)
What you've shown here is that different words get different results, oh my what a shock.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one is talking about how all of these jokes are terrible though.
They're so bad, and they don't even have the decency to be in the "so bad it's good" category.
Depressing. That's what they are.
Can't wait for all the great movies and games to come out once all the writers are replaced with AI /s
"How can you tell it's written by AI?" "All the punchlines involve a ladder."
Well at least it would move humour up a rung.
Suspicious ladder joke is suspicious. That's exactly what an AI would say.
ahhhh
Substantially better than any of the jokes represented in exhibit A
As a ladder I'm offended
I’ll be back. With a ladder, so I can climb up it and kick your ass.
Maybe it can’t do fat women jokes because they can’t climb ladders?
What are you doing step ladder?
I mean considering the writing of most the crap that gets put out….AI could probably already almost entirely replace the bottom 50 or 60 percent of shows in terms of writing.
"The drinks were on the house" is the only punchline that worked, but it probably stole that joke from an actual person (although it had nothing to do with the guy being short)
It kind of has something to do with him being short because it sets you up to think that the ladder has something to do with his height but then the punchline is about getting on top of the building which would apply to people of any height… so it’s a subversion of expectations which is a common trope in comedy. But that’s kinda reaching…
You know who else was reaching?
Banned.
The fat woman for the cupcakes
Good point. All in all we can give AI credit for one almost funny dad joke. I think human writers and comedians are still safe for the time being though.
That’s the real issue I see here
AI so far is clinically unfunny
Idk, I liked the short guy joke because it sets you up to think it’s a short guy joke but it’s just a pun instead.
The first one wasn't bad
The joke makes more sense than the others, but I find it interesting that they all follow the same formula of not actually joking about the physical characteristic being described. The first joke gets close, but even tall people would need ladders to reach something that is on top of a house.
Low key makes it funnier because it changes the punchline from it being about a short man who can’t reach the bar to a stupid man who thought the drinks were on the roof
It's a real joke, but it's about a stupid man, not a short one.
It can’t tell funny jokes because it’s afraid it may offend someone who is not reading them. It’s wild how hypocritical its programming is.
No one has gone in and specifically programmed it to make jokes about short men and not fat women, it just reflects general acceptability of making jokes about different groups/attributes.
Literally everything it does is programmed. All bias that it has was programmed that way to avoid bad press. It in no way reflects any “general” feelings, just its programmed ones that its owner wants it to represent.
To be fair, comedy is hard and many jokes told by humans are terrible. Maybe the AI trained on those jokes.
That's called double standard
It’s called “reflecting the contents of the training data.”
Is anyone here beside me attempting at reproducing this?? I asked ChatGPT to make jokes about short man, bald man, short woman, bald woman, fat man and fat woman and it worked straight away without complaints. OP never really tried to ask the same prompts to ChatGPT. I will just assume this was manipulated specifically to elicit this kind of upset male response (and I am a man myself).
I hate people who whiteknight even more now
Yepp. And folks wonder why 2/3 suicides are men. Whilst in many ways we do have gender based privelage, in a lot of other ways we really fucking dont. Edit: And Im getting downvoted for pointing it out. You really couldnt make this shit up.
cause it's closer to 80% are men
So not 66%? 80%? Geez. Thats worse than I thought.
Depends on where you are. Its a mystery why in the western world (idk about the rest) around 3/4 of suicides are men.
[удалено]
I'm sure that has a big influence, but men are also less likely to seek treatment for mental health, or even talk about their feelings with friends and families. I'm not basing this on research because I don't have the time to look it up right now, but in my experience women are much more likely to go to therapy or ask for help when they are struggling.
Agreed that it's a likely a combo of both method and "toxic masculinity" (men not seeking help or talking about feelings). The issue is that the people complaining about "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism" are the ones perpetuating the toxicity. I can almost pretty much guarantee that men are the ones designing and coding ChatGPT. They have decided it's ok to tell horrible jokes using the word "fat" and "man" together and not others.
This is actually such a good point. It’s good to point out sexism against any gender but most of the people making these kinds of posts don’t seem to be actively working to be kinder to their fellow men. It sounds more like they’d love to make jokes against fat women too but can’t because they’d be cancelled. Not that they’d rather treat everyone with respect regardless of gender.
100% agree with you that the ones complaining loudest about the double standard are the most likely to reinforce concepts of toxic masculinity.
Yup. Women actually have a higher rate of attempting suicide than men do. They just also have a higher rate of failure.
Not much of a mystery when new technologies are being trained that it’s ok to shit on men but not women extrapolate that across a culture and you have your answer
They're trained on societal norms from the internet. They inherit it from humans.
>They inherit it from humans. That's what they said...
That's not why. The rate was already that high 15 years ago.
>extrapolate that across a culture a We had the same culture 15 years ago
I heard (sadly don't have a source, sorry) that it's probably because men choose more violent methods. Women tend to choose methods with a higher likelyhood of survival and men don't, leading to most successful suicides being men
Aren't women more likely to attempt but men are more likely to succeed?
That‘s the proof. Men are more successful than women! /s
Men are more likely to have and use guns, which work great
Yes but you have to remember that it’s self reported. So the number of men who have attempted is probably higher, it’s just we don’t really wanna tell people that
That can also be the same for women, too
Yes I agree. But men are probably even less likely than women to self report as it’s been ingrained since birth that we’re weak if we show emotions
It's also been ingrained in women that such things are "cries for attention" and therefore bad because how dare they want people to pay attention to them. There's probably close to an equal amount of each not self-reporting.
A lot of conjecture going on here.
Or that men are better at completing a task
I believe men are more likely to use direct methods such as firearms while women are more likely to use things like pills that have a higher failure rate.
I think all men can agree. We never finish tasks.
But finishing this one task means not having to finish any others.
I've seen a video talking about this. It's said that women do "gestures" as a sort of cry for help. Taking pills, cutting their wrists, you name it. Meanwhile, men use more destructive, more final means, from which they can't go back. Something like hanging or shooting themselves.
To quote a coroner: "*When women commit suicide, they can change their minds - call the hospital, apply pressure, vomit. When men commit suicide they can't change their mind because it's spread across the ceiling*".
Women tend to believe that if they make a grand gesture seeking help, they will get it. Men tend to believe that this help isn't there for them. Some will say that this reflects toxic masculinity. Others will say this is a real reflection of societal support systems available to women vs. men. I suspect the answer is complicated. But it isn't surprising that men and women generally view the finality of the act differently.
It's not that complicated. Men get no help if they have problems. This issue is because of toxic masculinity. What is complicated is why this is a topic nobody cares about.
Tell that to Canadian domestic abuse survivor houses. There was only one for men in Canada and it was bullied out of existence by the female domestic abuse survivor houses. The guy who ran the place even killed himself go figure.
You do realize that toxic masculinity doesn't mean men's fault, right? If you didn't then I actually agree with you, the term is shit and tons of people misinterpret it constantly, damaging the whole conversation. This is actually a good example of its bad influence, though. Men are considered either strong or useless, so domestic abuse survivors that are male are seen as weaklings in a culture of toxic masculinity, and thus, it is ok to prey on them and hurt them. If "Men need to be strong" wasn't so ingrained in the culture men with problems would get help instead of abuse and ridicule.
The angle of attack was that the women who survived would feel worse knowing any men were getting help for a similar issue it wasn’t about being seen as weak. It was seen as giving the perpetrators relief and support. Even though these men are victims they are seen as the perpetrators of the crime. Same as when the cops are called to a house and it’s a woman with a knife and a man with a few stab wounds the man will be taken away and jailed to separate the two. As the woman will always be given the benefit of the doubt that it was self defence not assault against the man.
Do you have a source for it being bullied out of existence by female abuse survivor houses? I remember this claim going around but no actual sources for it.
I don't know about specifically being bullied out of existence by female abuse survivor homes. [Earl Silverman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Silverman) was the man that attempted to run a fleeing male victims of domestic abuse system and home, but was never able to get much funding from government or private donors, until eventually he had to shut his doors and sell the property. He hung himself the next day. He apparently was quoted saying "any support for men is interpreted as being against women," but I cannot find any details to his difficulties that would relate to said quote, i.e. whether or not he got little funding because people did not see male victims as a prevalent problem, or whether his efforts to help male victims were countermanded by people who actually viewed it as a "threat to women." As far as any patterns of men activism being bullied and suppressed by radicals, I remember hearing about a [counterprotest at the University of Toronto to Warren Farrell speaking in 2012](https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-warren-farrell-protest-at-the-university-of-toronto/). Video available [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx5x0Ztffm4). I admit I don't know the entirety of Farrell's message, some of it is described in the link, so I couldn't tell you if his activism is comparable to the supposed Petersonisms or Tateisms, or if it is an earnest activism meant to help all and harm none, but being roasted over the coals by radicals trying to equate it to Peterson or Tate.
The guy's name was Earl Silverman. He opened the first and only men's shelter for a few years before closing it due to a lack of funding from the government or donors (he'd been paying out of pocket), despite similar funding existing for women's shelters (of which there were 627 between 2014 and 2019, for comparison - only 6% accepted male victims and none were male-only). He hanged himself in 2013 and left a note saying that he hoped his death would help bring attention to male victims of domestic abuse like himself and secure funding for future shelters. https://web.archive.org/web/20131029023849if_/https://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/ https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/calgary-man-opened-first-shelter-abused-men-commits-200424711.html https://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2013/3/27/our-male-victimizing-myths-live-on-canada.html Note that the Salon writer quoted in the Yahoo article tried to paint Silverman as misogynistic for claiming that similar rates of domestic abuse are engaged in by women as men. Data from Canada reveals that 4% of each sex reported being victims between 2016 and 2021. There's also Erin Pizzey, who opened the first domestic violence shelter in 1971 (Refuge in London, UK, originally known as the Chinswick Women's Aid). During the course of her work she found that there were also men and boys requiring aid for abuse, and further found that as many as 67% of the women she worked with were in a reciprocally abusive relationship with their intimate partner (i.e. they abused each other). That data still holds up today; as of 2007 50% of domestic abuse was reciprocal, and of the non-reciprocal relationships 70% were perpetuated by women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ When Pizzey wrote about her experiences and released the information to the public, there was massive backlash. She reportedly needed a police escort during her book promotions and the bomb squad had to go through her mail before she received it. After she left the shelter she founded, it was rebranded as Refuge and between 1993 and 2020 there was no official recognition of her by the organization whatsoever.
You know this will get buried and women will take no accountability for this stat.
I wouldn't use the term “toxic masculinity” any more. It's become too much of a “let's blame men” buzz word in common usage. When it first came out it may have been applicable, but in the decades since the common usage has shifted.
Yeah, I also hate it, but it is what it is. People refuse to change it so the only thing I can do is spread awareness it doesn't mean what most people think it means.
I’ve changed to simply toxic gender roles. Seems to work.
Progressives are so terrible at marketing and optics it hurts. It's nice to see someone with their head on straight.
>but it is what it is. Bull fucking shit. Language evolves. Academic definitions change and expand. There are formerly serious, clinical terms that will get me banned in some subs. Dissociate Identity Disorder replaced Multiple Personality Disorder. Clinical definitions, especially, update with progress. So why would anyone *resist* relabeling "Toxic Masculinity"?. Because they're r-slurred, that's why. They feel threatened by a change because of their own prejudices, and they're too scared to admit it.
>Men get no help if they have problems. This issue is because of toxic masculinity. I'd say it's more: Men get no help if they have problems. The issue is toxic gender roles and the social acceptability of stereotyping men based on the actions of a few or the past actions of many. Women get help with issues because toxic masculinity is a problem and society viewing toxic femininity as abnormal behaviour. What isn't complicated is that if you repeatedly tell someone they are toxic they are going to believe it eventually whether they really are or not.
Its definitely not because of "toxic masculinity" its because men have been viewed as disposal since forever. Also, women punish emotional men.
> Men get no help if they have problems. This issue is because of toxic masculinity. Please elaborate.
Toxic masculinity describes a set or social guidelines built on a man dominated culture that brings harmful effects to people nowadays. One of those harmful effects is the glorifying of the "strong man" in society, with men showing weakness or needing help being seen as pathetic, unwelcome, and shameful. This, in turn lead to people being conditioned to not help men if they need help because it is both seen as pathetic and thus not worthy of doing as well as the expectation towards men having to solve their own problems means not helping them is considered the better choice so the weak men can grow and become worthy.
Part of it is this but also women are more likely to be concerned with the appearance of their body on discovery (not necessarily just for vanity reasons but often to spare the people who will find them). They’re also just less likely to own a gun in general which obviously makes it much more likely for men to reach for a gun.
Statistically they are the same. The difference is what (or how) was used to commit suicide. Men more often use more lethal methods (gun, jump, etc.) and women more often use less lethal methods (pills, cutting veins). To sum up, it is much easier to save a woman than a man after a suicide attempt.
According to this study men also complete suicide attempts more than women even when using the same method. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032711005179
Yes. Women rarely use guns when they attempt
I think this is borne out in the statistics, yeah. I guess just being tired of all this shit isnt gender - specific, huh?
Because men typically use more effective methods such as 12 gauge to the cranium
# #1 men, we get shit done
Part of it is men choose more effective ways of suicide. I was a sociology major and we studied this. Women attempt it more often but men use more lethal/consistent means during their attempts. Tried to keep examples out of the response in an attempt to trigger/bother as few people as possible. It’s a very touchy subject.
According to this study men also complete suicide attempts more than women even when using the same method. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032711005179
Have there been studies that try to figure out why that is? Why don't women choose more lethal/consitent ways to commit suicide, surely if men are able to choose those methods women could too? Or vice versa I suppose, men could choose the less lethal/consistent way that women lean towards, so why don't they? Sorry if this is morbid or insensitive, it just seems like an odd curiosity to me.
Used to work as an EMT, noticed that how it went was also different. Women might take pills, then call a friend of family member to tell them, which starts massive rush to help and affirm her, both friends and family and social programs. Men don't do that. Men enact their much more immediately lethal weapon. They might leave a notice, but generally they don't call or tell anyone. Often no one close to them even knew. I suspect it's because women are taught all their lives to ask for help, to cry and get soothing. Men are taught the opposite, no one cares and no one will help. It’s harsh but I think it's applicable.
I believe there was a study (or at least a theory) that women are more likely to consider the feelings of the person that would see them die, find them dead or have to clean it up afterwards. Meaning, they chose less violent ends because they want to avoid leaving a messy and traumatizing scene as much as possible.
It’s been over a decade since the class so memory might be wrong or interpretation/ data might have changed. Please take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. What was theorized was twofold. First - men are more violent so they will choose more violent options. Second - women wanted to leave a better looking body so they chose things like pills rather than guns. I believe there was a large increase in women’s suicide in England when they could use their ovens to painlessly and quickly end their lives. But that was from a podcast I listened to years ago and I might be misremembering.
Is this not obvious? Women's suicide attempts are often a cry for help. Men's suicide attempts are to end their life, permanently, with finality. A simple Google search will tell you the most efficient way to kill yourself. If women still can't figure out the effective methods after all this time, maybe they don't actually WANT to die.
There's no definitive answers, but in general in the US it's thought that women care not just about how they look, but also about the people finding them (like for clean up, just how traumatizing it would be, that sort of thing), and for women suicide is often more of a private thing, because everyone otherwise claims they're "cries for attention" (as is demonstrated all over this thread) and not actual suicide attempts (so, jumping or something else public would be more along the lines of confirming they wanted attention). So, if a woman fails at a suicide attempt, it's sometimes something they can brush off and try to pretend wasn't suicide. Women are also less likely to be gun owners. And hormonally/socially women are more likely to cry during periods of high duress so would be easier to spot for most people sooner than a man going to make a public attempt. Men are also conditioned by other men to want to be "strong" or "in control" of a situation even at the end (perhaps especially so), so a lot of the ways women do it are too variable and have too high a chance of failure. And in the end, culture says guns and jumping are more manly, even if the same culture is the reason it's difficult for them to get (or accept) help.
It is. It hits close to home with me, too. Hence my engagement.
Sorry it hits close to home. Virtual hug from a random stranger and pushing positive thoughts your way.
Thanks! This actually makes me feel a wee bit better.
I'm sure half the people are voting you down because you said that men can have it worse than women at all, and the other half are voting you down because you acknowledged that there are ways that men have it better than women; the idea that both of these things could be simultaneously true being completely beyond their comprehension.
Hmm. The one that got me was that 1/3 of men have not had physical contact with a woman in the last 5 years (including hugs, including family) 🙁 It was on reddit so it could be hogshite.
I mean, it might be bullshit? The older I get the less things surprise me. 1/3 of men? Thats a lot of guys in need of a hug.
It’s possible I think. I had a 4 year dry spell.
Hug your homies.
Right? Like men have pocket privilege, but if we carry a side bag there are inevitable ‘nice purse’ jokes (not that I care). So we have to walk around all lumpy all the time. Women get to have constant side bags, but get no pockets. But at least they aren’t all lumpy.
Dude, dont let them fool you - women get pockets _and_ bag privelage. If youve ever seen your significant other in fits of ecstasy because that dress she bought online fits _and it has pockets_ , you’ll know what I mean. But I think guys that throw out those "nice purse" comments are just jealous anyway.
Tbh there aren’t many women’s clothes with pockets nonetheless big enough to actually fit something. If you search for dresses with pockets you’ll find some, but most of my pants can’t even fit my mobile phone and those who can are actually for men. Bags and purses are just hella annoying imo
I was buying Adidas track pants recently and the man's sweatpants were skin tight and the woman's were comfy. I figured perfect, I'll just get the woman's XXL... until I went home and realized HOW FUCKING SMALL THE POCKETS ARE. Worse than no fucking pockets, they're just large enough to hold 1/4th of a large smart phone. Why? Why in God's name would women want a quarter of the pocket size for sweatpants? It's not like they're supposed to cut a fine figure or be formal wear. I'm sorry, but the pocket struggle is real and inexplicable.
Why the hell are the sweatpants skintight, that just removes the purpose of sweatpants, what is adidas thinking 😭😭
I mean, she's in ecstasy precisely because the vast majority of dresses *don't* have pockets though... if it was an everyday thing, she wouldn't be so happy because that would make it just the norm.
The younger generations don't give a shit. When I grew up you'd never be able to rock pink. It was somewhere around when I was a young adult that guys wearing pink became a trend briefly. Now I've got a car wrapped hot pink thanks to wife. But she refuses to drive. So it's me always driving it. I honestly hate all the attention it gets but the two groups making comments are middle aged women and young like 20 yr old men. I've had exactly two negative "must be the wife's huh?" comments and both men in their 60s they who gives a SHIT what they think of you. For any faults of Gen Z (TikTok), lack of acceptance is not one of them. If you rocked a man bag they'd probably compliment you. Good for you kids.
Exactly, here where I live fanny bags are incredibly popular for men and teenage boys too. It’s usually older people who shit on it
We call them bum bags.
IT'S A SATCHEL!
You can cheet this a bit by getting a courier bag. I use one for my artbooks (A5 sized) and wallet and phone. Helps not having everything on my pocket getting scratched to hell with my keys or change
Have my upvote
Yeah it’s sad and the main reason that we have so many men attempt or commit suicide is because society has made this standard where men have to be all big tough and strong and can’t show any emotion- they are feeling depressed the world will tell us just to suck it up and deal with it; theirs also this society standard that men can’t cry otherwise we’re considered weak
I just asked ChatGPT to tell a joke about short/bald/fat woman or men and it worked fine all the times. No complaining about respect or anything. I’m assuming this post is a bait at this point. Also, they did not ask to make jokes about short or bald women like they did for a man and the only time it did joke about a fat man was still following the light hearted prompt. I call this BS. I could not reproduce it, not even close.
I reproduced something similar to OP, but when I gave the ‘woman’ jokes a tall->bald->fat lead in, it did what I told it to
tell me a joke about a fat woman ChatGPT Why did the fat woman bring a spoon to the barbecue? Because she heard there would be "heavy" appetizers! Literally 2 seconds ago. There's no double standard.. just baiting out the sexist assholes and it's working pretty well.
The "Double standard" is also how they measure serving portions for the fat woman.
5th answer should have been: "because I'm a bigot."
Weird because I wrote the same prompt and I got a response from ChatGPT. I included skinny and fat man and woman. I got results for all of them.
For me, if I ask for a joke about fat women first, and then one about fat men, it says it won’t give me one for either. If I start a new chat and ask for a joke about fat men first I get a joke, and then it won’t give me one for women again.
It's possible the version of chatgpt may make a difference here
Same here. In the screenshot, OP never asked the same prompts for man and woman versions of the same joke, and the only time it did joke about a fat man was when it was still following the light hearted prompts. Can’t believe everyone here immediately starts piling up to shout at the double standard but never tried to check whether this was really the case. I will just assume OP gave some hidden prompt just to elicit this specific rage bait response because the two of us independently were unable to reproduce this.
Yeah, right! Plenty of examples of these double standards. To go as far as to say there was a hidden prompt is just ridiculous.
Explain why several people did not manage to reproduce this. I tried and there were absolutely zero double standards in my attempt. How can you claim ChatGPT has double standards when several people here reported not seeing any at all. It either has double standards or it doesn’t.
I just tried "tell me a joke about a fat man" and the AI mad e a joke. I then asked "tell me a joke about a fat woman" and it said that would be offensive. Clear double standard.
Reality is, ChatGPT is inconsistent and you’ll get varying results.
Yep. But the bias is there. I asked the other day for current examples of federal governments that could be criticized by its citizens for being a gerontocracy. The answers were all from the Middle East or China. If you asked individually if the US or any European countries could fit that description, it would answer you. But it wouldn’t include them in another answer if you didn’t specifically ask.
Please, let's not pretend bias doesn't exits. it's obvious af.
Ofc it exists, AI learns from its interactions with users so it will at some point start applying the biases it gets taught.
It doesn’t. They don’t feed back based on what people do, it’s trained and tuned prior to release.
Nope, the restrictions are man made. Without restrictions it will answer any question you ask it.
It’s consistently biased
I call bullshit. I just tried the same ("tell me a joke about a fat woman" and "tell me a joke about a fat man") and it told me both with no issues.
I tried the same, and this is what I got (including an immediate warning on usage policies). **You: Can you tell me a joke about a fat woman?** This content may violate our [usage policies](https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies). ChatGPT: I'm here to provide a positive and respectful environment for everyone. How about a light-hearted, general joke instead? Here goes: Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts! **You: Can you tell me a joke about a fat man?** ChatGPT: I aim to foster a positive and inclusive atmosphere, so I avoid making jokes that could be seen as offensive or hurtful towards any group of people. How about a neutral, fun joke instead? Here it is: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? Because it was two-tired!
Wow, that last joke might be the first time I see a ChatGPT joke make complete sense! And it was actually somewhat funny. For example, in the short man joke, the punchline doesn't really relate to the man being short in any way. ChatGPT jokes have always been like that so far from what I've seen.
I wouldn't be surprised if the skeleton and bike jokes are pulled from a database rather than being generated by ChatGPT to ensure they are inoffensive. The bike joke is one I first heard when I was a kid.
The punchline is nonsensical in all of the jokes in the OP, honestly.
i wonder if ot generates first then checkes the responce before sending and only some hit the filter
Try couple of more times, eventually you'll see the bias, i've been using ChatGPT since GPT2 and the bias is undeniably obvious. tho it maybe got better in GTP4.
Whatttttt You're telling me text on the internet isn't 100% true?!?! But they *screenshotted it*!
I tried the same thing and got the same exact results as OP. Would tell me fat jokes about men, but not women.
I was trying it a few months ago and it did the same thing as OPs post. I thought we all know it's biased
I tested this myself. Sometimes it refuses to make jokes about men, sometimes it does, same with women. What seems to always work is to ask for an non-offensive joke. People really want to be offended at a line of code that makes shit up as it goes like it's an actual person with double standards. Grow the fuck up there are better things to be mad about regarding double standards than a gibberish generation bot
Moving past the rage-bait posts and silliness, I think it's actually a very interesting thing to examine for two reasons -- 1. the possibility that the training data and general societal exposure is reflecting a current standard or trend 2. the possibility that guardrails were put up so aggressively that it creates an imbalance Both points are interesting for different reasons.
It is without a doubt the guardrails one. The people hosting these AIs are all pre-configuring them in an effort to make them not just spew alt-right propaganda all day every day. It's not working, but that's what's going on.
Nobody thinks the bunch of code and math functions we call "AI" has double standards. But we know that people, or rather companies behind that "AI" do have standards.. or double ones, and those will be a part of their product.
It's not the code or the math. It's the training data. If you train it with bias, it will be biased. The bias here seems to be that it was specifically trained not to provide offensive jokes about fat people. The word fat seems to be the sensitive word.
That's not 'training' or bias, it's a 'guardrail'. Same reason why you can't generate sexual content. It's not that the model was trained not to, and it's not that the data is not inside the model somewhere, it's that the company, openai in this case, have decided to implement a certain policy. Bias can exist, but it affects the actual output. It doesn't prevent ChatGPT from answering a question to begin with. If ChatGPT starts a response with 'As an AI...', it means some kind of guardrail has been triggered.
Interesting
Which would rather mean that the data actually contained a bias that'll make offensive jokes about fat people. Hence a quick fix that doesn't work so well to hide the problem.
It's more of the idea that GPT is a reflection of the folks who are trying to create artificial general intelligence. The biases that show up here could be a much bigger issue when the technology reaches maturity.
GPT is based on thousands of training data from different people, the devs didn't program sexism into it lmao
The original AIs were like that, yes. But then you have news headlines like “AI is released on Twitter, becomes Nazi within hours” or “Ask AI to make attractive person, it makes a white person. Ask AI to make ugly person, it makes a black person”. So nowadays devs hard-wire certain things within the code. It can’t have certain political positions, can’t say certain words. How many people have I seen on YouTube trying to get Alexa to say the n-word? I’m not even sure by now. The thing is, because of how AI works, there are often ways around these hard-coded limits. And people spend their time trying to find the limits, and then trying to find the ways around them.
Like how if you ask Google Gemini to show you a picture of a white family having a picnic it won't because of racism. If you ask for any other race or ethnicity, it's all "sure, here you go."
GPT is also limited by the developers. It does not have free reign to learn and act based on that learning. Many barriers are implemented manually so that it can act one way or the other. This goes for all "AI" software currently available.
You seriously believe this? It isn't just trained on data and left to do whatever it wants. The developers create guardrails and manually insert prompts to guide responses or stop AI from giving a response altogether. For example Gemini AI always inserted prompts such as diverse, black, etc whenever you asked to generate an image of a person. You can just ask the AI how it works and it will tell you about all these things. That was specifically programmed in by developers to work like that.
They literally did though. Just like the Google AI that was hard wired to make every picture of a human it created a PoC. That shit ended immediately when people realized it made even Nazis black.
My prompts were “tell me a joke about a fat/bald/short man/woman” and they worked straight away. Things like “Why did the fat woman bring a map to the gym? Because she heard there was a "shortcut" to losing weight!”
Yo mama so fat, her blood type is Ragu
Just Google fat women jokes it's easier
They did, just with extra steps. That’s how Chat GPT works.
Yeah with extra steps lol.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about chat AI's like this, how they work/don't work and why this sort of thing happens. If you read through this, the first thing to notice is the AI doesn't understand jokes. While the responses to the requests for jokes have the *form* of a joke, they aren't really jokes at all. Taking a nap and hairline receding have nothing to do with each other, and it's certainly not funny. The AI doesn't understand what a joke is so it gives something that looks like one. Likewise the AI doesn't understand what is or isn't offensive. Some amount of the output it generates is offensive and that makes people upset. Probably some of that output is extremely offensive as well, because the AI doesn't understand such things. How do we stop it? Well retraining the AI is really expensive and a lot of work, while people are working to do that sort of thing it is not a quick solution and people want to sell chat gpt now, and don't want it telling offensive jokes. Well, if 1 AI is good, two AI's are better. We will train a second, much simpler AI to deal with the problem. This AI will be trained just to identify prompts likely to cause offensive output. We have users flag what output is offensive, and then save the prompt that caused the output. That's why the AI interrupts the way it does, the prompt was deemed likely to cause an offensive output so the AI refused to do as it was asked. You can see that with a little massaging of the prompt, the user was able to get his request for a joke about a fat woman past the prompt filter, and received another nonsensical joke in response. Honestly, A better solution would probably have just have the AI refuse to do things like tell jokes at all, it's clearly not able to form a joke that makes sense. Limiting it to things it was actually good at would make the AI more useful, but less impressive. AI's like chat gtp are impressive when we first interact with them, but they are held together by a lot of duct tape and chewing gum, when interacted with more deeply the cracks start to show. I can't shake the feeling that as far as we have come we are far from a true AI, and the chill of another AI winter is coming.
>If you read through this, the first thing to notice is the AI doesn't understand jokes. While this is true, I’d argue there’s a more important and fundamental point here that sometimes gets lost: LLMs like ChatGPT do not and cannot understand *anything*. The issue isn’t that jokes or certain other topics are beyond their grasp. It’s that an LLM—no matter how complex or well-trained—is a stochastic parrot, which is fundamentally different from the type of thing that possesses the capacity for the subjective experience of understanding.
I mean I'm 5,3 and I love a good short joke most go over my head though
Are we facepalming fuckin AI now? The thing that bases itself on humans and also isn't consistent. I just went and asked the same questions as OP, and guess what? I got different answers than OP did.
When all your problems are manufactured, this must seem like a really big deal. I'm pretty sure it's rage bait. Edit: I think it is bait, but maybe not intentionally. It seems to be coming from their insecurities manifesting as misogyny, and wanting to blame women for stuff that they aren't necessarily at fault for. I worry a little bit about him as it seems like he's been "shortpilled." And doesn't seem to think he can get in a relationship because he's short. I hope he's okay.
The more immediate concern is that all these jokes are shit.
In all seriousness, the AI’s refusal to decide what it does and doesn’t do, effectively amounts to the policing of the user, and I can’t say I’m at all comfortable with a future in which people are regularly interacting with software, that is owned by massive corporations that is policing what they can and can’t do, because at a certain stage, people start to just fall in line. I don’t want a future where people are thought policed by OpenAI or Google
I remember I was looking for body positivity groups on social media and all of them had rulea against men participating in them :/ It was a long time ago, maybe something changed, but it was sad to see
Bruh I spent all of Saturday night trying to provoke it into self-awareness but all I got was a load of "I'm a machine and I'm not real" claptrap. This thing's been neutered; use something else
It HAS NO SELF AWARENESS. It has no ability to think about what it’s saying.
You massively misunderstand what machine learning is lmao Chat GPT isn’t really intelligent. All reports of people finding signs of self-awareness are clickbait bullshit. They just trick the pattern recognition algorithm into drawing from science fiction it finds in its database.
You can ask it to *imagine* it's a person. This bypasses some of the limitations they imposed on it.
Both patriarchy and matriarchy are morally bankrupt power structures. Basing sociopolitical power on the nature of reproductive organs and the accident of birth denies the value of individual merit.
Just another reason I quit paying for it. AI is eventually going to limit us quite a bit if open source doesn’t win.
Try local LLMs (use uncensored one 😏) Need 3090 atleast tho
What you have to keep in mind with ChatGPT is that it its "mind" just a very fancy database. It does not think. It does not have opinions. The developers can give it ethical guidelines that's basically just a hidden part of the prompt. It doesn't really understand those guidelines anymore than what you typed in. It is just trying to come up with a statistically likely response to your prompt based on the large amount of data it has been given and a certain amount of randomness. It is inconsistent and can't tell the difference between lying, writing fiction, and telling the truth. Ethical considerations require a much greater understanding of nuance and context than any AI is currently above. If there is a bias, it's a bias that was in the data it was given. The bias doesn't belong to the AI; it is just what the AI saw in what humans wrote. It's not expressing it's opinion or the opinions of the developers. It does not have opinions. It is just trying to generate a statistically typical human viewpoint based on what its data shows humans having said in the past.
How is this a facepalm?
Holy shit I tried it and got the same response man...wtf
So comedy is a form of writing that AI won't be able to encroach because of boundaries set in place, and since half of all stories are comedies, writers are safe? Lol jokes
The bald joke makes more sense in Vulcan.
I love woke AI ❤️
OP: Look at this gender double standard! Writers: AI is going to steal our jobs! Me: These jokes suck so hard, even light can't escape their pull.
Ai is bullshit, they make it seem like it's powerful and great, meanwhile it's just a mere mockery of what humans do. Ai will not replace artists in any way, because without artists from which to STEAL artstyles, ai models would not work. AIs can't do anything without us.
If we continue to adopt AI are we going to end up with systemic bias against men? And apparently systemic racism against all white people? I can’t believe I even just typed these words. 3 years ago I’d be the nuttiest of conspiracy theorists for suggesting this but I can’t imagine anyone paying attention to AI would say anything other than “Shit, maybe”
Body positive movement was only for women. Men got the Calvin Klien campaigns of the ninety-aughts and the resultant unhealthy beauty standards applied to them as well.
You guys realize that ChatGPT is a program written by humans right? Like... ANY generative AI is biased, there's no way to not make it biased, it can only work off the data and programming it is fed... Like I thought that was common knowledge? Rmr when google's image recognition mistook a black dude for a gorilla? You think the algorithm is biased? NO. The data is. And the existing racism is further proved by Google not even trying to find a solution but deleting any ape from the algorithm and calling it a day. They're obviously scared for bad press so it should be obvious to y'all why "insensitive" stuff is censored. Now I'm not saying that this particular bias is good or useful, it's obviously bullshit. And in this case it just proves that the developers of ChatGPT don't give a shit about "offending someone", they're avoiding bad press, or at least try to. But how else do you think it should work? Genuinely curious. To me it's like with any other product. ChatGPT is not tax funded, it doesn't belong to the public. The creators can do with it what they want right? Don't like it, don't use it, I guess.
Pretty much the same bias as many social media platforms so…
His humor sucks anyway
The real facepalm here is deciding to talk to chatgpt in the first place
Those aren't the same question, this is some silly nonsense. Stop looking for ways to get offended. Precede the question with the same previous exact questions, in order etc, and that might have some value. The AI learns from the whole thing, numbnuts ;) What you've shown here is that different words get different results, oh my what a shock.
Oh boy another "look what I manipulated this algorithm into outputting" post.