AI frequently does provide flat out “no” answers regarding certain definitions though. Case in point: ChatGPT weighs Israeli human rights as more essential than Palestinian rights due to the baked in Microsoft coding. Critiquing this ridiculous chatbot fueled discourse when it leans on a nonsensical definition of the law of value by a computer that doesn’t have any way of analyzing it is fine since a model which could at least rhetorically handle the law of value better could give more pertinent answers.

I have messed around with a lot of mainstream slopware and local AI models and you can’t feed them historical materialist writing and produce something intelligible. It produces junk.

But of course you don’t know what the law of value is either, so why would you care? 🤣

One lemmy user recently pointed out that expanding current AI is much like expanding the speech center of the brain as much as possible and hoping it learns to perform the functions of the rest. I think that what we are seeing with Petro is just another boomer AI hype victim