No, I’m specifically describing what an LLM is. It’s a statistical model trained on token sequences to generate contextually appropriate outputs. That’s not “tools it uses", that is the model. When I said it pattern-matches reasoning and identifies contradictions, I wasn’t talking about external plug-ins or retrieval tools, I meant the LLM’s own internal learned representation of language, logic, and discourse.

You’re drawing a false distinction. When GPT flags contradictions, weighs claims, or mirrors structured reasoning, it’s not outsourcing that to some other tool, it’s doing what it was trained to do. It doesn’t need to understand truth like a human to model the structure of truthful argumentation, especially if the prompt constrains it toward epistemic rigor.

Now, if you’re talking about things like code execution, search, or retrieval-augmented generation, then sure, those are tools it can use. But none of that was part of my argument. The ability to track coherence, cite counterexamples, or spot logical fallacies is all within the base LLM. That’s just weights and training.

So unless your point is that LLMs aren’t humans, which is obvious and irrelevant, all you’ve done is attack your own straw man.

I do understand what an LLM is. It’s a probabilistic model trained on massive corpora to predict the most likely next token given a context window. I know it’s not sentient and doesn’t “think,” and doesn’t have beliefs. That’s not in dispute.

But none of that disqualifies it from being useful in evaluating truth claims. Evaluating truth isn’t about thinking in the human sense, it’s about pattern-matching valid reasoning, sourcing relevant evidence, and identifying contradictions or unsupported claims. LLMs do that very well, especially when prompted properly.

Your insistence that this is “dangerous naïveté” confuses two very different things: trusting an LLM blindly, versus leveraging it with informed oversight. I’m not saying GPT magically knows truth, I’m saying it can be used as a tool in a truth-seeking process, just like search engines, logic textbooks, or scientific journals. None of those are conscious either, yet we use them to get closer to truth.

You’re worried about misuse, and so am I. But claiming the tool is inherently useless because it lacks consciousness is like saying microscopes can’t discover bacteria because they don’t know what they’re looking at.

So again: if you believe GPT is inherently incapable of aiding in truth evaluation, the burden’s on you to propose a more effective tool that’s publicly accessible, scalable, and consistent. I’ll wait.

Right now, the capabilities of LLM’s are the worst they’ll ever be. It could literally be tomorrow that someone drops and LLM that would be perfectly calibrated to evaluate truth claims. But right now, we’re at least 90% of the way there.

The reason people fail to understand the untruths of AI is the same reason people hurt themselves with power tools, or use a calculator wrong.

You don’t blame the tool, you blame the user. LLM’s are no different. You can prompt GPT to intentionally give you bad info, or lead it to give you bad info by posting increasingly deranged statements. If you stay coherent, well read and make an attempt at structuring arguments to the best of your ability, the pool of data GPT pulls from narrows enough to be more useful than anything else I know.

I’m curious as to what you regard as a better tool for evaluating truth?

Period.

What makes you think humans are better at evaluating truth? Most people can’t even define what they mean by “truth,” let alone apply epistemic rigor. Tweak it a little, and Gpt is more consistent and applies reasoning patterns that outperform the average human by miles.

Epistemology isn’t some mystical art, it’s a structured method for assessing belief and justification, and large models approximate it surprisingly well. Sure it doesn’t “understand” truth in the human sense, but it does evaluate claims against internalized patterns of logic, evidence, and coherence based on a massive corpus of human discourse. That’s more than most people manage in a Facebook argument.

So yes, it can evaluate truth. Not perfectly, but often better than the average person.

Granted, it is flakey unless you’ve configured it not to be a shit cunt. Before I manually set these prompts and memory references, it talked shit all the time.

Actually, given the aforementioned prompts, its quite good at discerning flaws in my arguments and logical contradictions.

I often use it to check whether my rationale is correct, or if my opinions are valid.

This is the reason I’ve deliberately customized GPT with the follow prompts:

• User expects correction if words or phrases are used incorrectly.

• Tell it straight—no sugar-coating.

• Stay skeptical and question things.

• Keep a forward-thinking mindset.

• User values deep, rational argumentation.

• Ensure reasoning is solid and well-supported.

• User expects brutal honesty.

• Challenge weak or harmful ideas directly, no holds barred.

• User prefers directness.

• Point out flaws and errors immediately, without hesitation.

• User appreciates when assumptions are challenged.

• If something lacks support, dig deeper and challenge it.

I suggest copying these prompts into your own settings if you use GPT or other glorified chatbots.

Dont need to with Nix lol.

When it launches it has your previous configs locked and loaded (provided you dont nuke them)

What a noob, with just roll back to an earlier build of your relationship, duh!

So i looked into the lens flare thing and I’m not so convinced.

Here’s the kicker:

The thing jammed radar.

Multiple pilots VISUALLY saw it.

It was confirmed to have descended 80,000 feet in less than a second, by both radar and a shipborne Aegis system, which prompted the pilots to take to the skies and check it out.

The videos we see aren’t the most important pieces of evidence, it’s supporting evidence.

Lens flare cannot explain the radar and aegis verification, and subsequent jamming, the visual confirmation, or the physics breaking performance characteristics.

The thing went from hovering stationary, to beyond the speed of sound without creating a sonic boom.

Anything made of meat would be liquefied by the inertia.

There was no visual propulsion, or heat signatures from it.

So, I reiterate, what the fuck is it?

The new benchmark is the pentagon releasing the videos, with radar, and infrared, as well as testimonies to congress from people who are skeptical themselves.

Seriously though, what the actual fuck are those UAP videos… It’s fucking wild.

I love writing yaml as a nix expression. That shit locks my flake.

I’m also an absolute dumbfuck. And I can confidently tell you, as a matter of fact, that I don’t know.

I’m running SWAG reverse proxy, my DNS is not tunneled, I share my Jellyfin with others outside my network.

My primary concern is my server gets hacked, or I get charged with distributing ‘public domain movies’

What the fuck lol

Almost as weird as nelliesnest, I love it.

By my definition, family is who you treat like family.

Just like Kanye, it’s schizophrenia’s fault he loooovvves Hitler

I was making a matrix reference

Gentlemen, we unplugged another one. Zion is growing day by day.

I think a lot of people give Mao a bad wrap.

For what it’s worth, Stalin is a monster, and the state of China right now is repugnant.

Mao didn’t intentionally lead tens of millions of people to starve in the same way Stalin did. Mao was trying to revolutionise agriculture (The Great Leap Forward) but didn’t understand the ecological and logistic principles required.

I’m convinced his intentions were good, he just wasn’t educated enough to implement something like this.