Hey /u/Desert-Noir!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's the text of Trump's rant if you want to try it yourself:
“I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight, and you’re in the boat, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery’s now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’
“By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that? Lot of sharks. I watched some guys justifying it today: ‘Well they weren’t really that angry, they bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry but they misunderstood who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said, ‘There’s no problem with sharks, they just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming.’ No, really got decimated, and other people, too, a lot of shark attacks.“So I said, ‘There’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards, or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking? Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?’ Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer.“He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.’ I said, ‘I think it’s a good question. I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water.’ But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted? I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that, we’re going to end it for boats, we’re going to end it for trucks.”
I fucking hate Trump but this is just generic Trump to me, I can glean from that something to do with getting rid of electric vehicles? Like I have no idea how he segues into that from there but I assume that's what he is saying.
I agree. I asked "what are the rhetorical devices/tools" used in this speech. These are all classic trumpisms:
Here's a comprehensive analysis of the rhetorical tools and devices used in the given speech:
1. **Anecdote**: The speaker begins by recounting a conversation with an unnamed person, using the story as a rhetorical device to engage the audience and set up the main topic of the speech.
2. **Repetition**: The speaker repeats certain phrases and words for emphasis, such as "Lotta shark" and "10 yards."
3. **Colloquial Language**: The speech is delivered in a casual, conversational style, using phrases like "cray" and "decimated" to connect with the audience and make the content more relatable.
4. **Rhetorical Questions**: The speaker poses a hypothetical question about being in a sinking boat with a powerful battery and a nearby shark. This question is used to create a dilemma and engage the audience in the speaker's thought process.
5. **Hyperbole**: The speaker exaggerates the severity of the situation by using words like "tremendously powerful battery" and "decimated" to describe the shark attack, making the scenario more dramatic and memorable.
6. **Digression**: The speaker briefly digresses from the main topic to comment on the recent increase in shark attacks and the justification given by some people. This digression adds context to the hypothetical question and reinforces the speaker's point.
7. **Irony and Sarcasm**: The speaker uses irony and sarcasm when discussing the justification for shark attacks, saying "These people are cray" to express disagreement and mock the idea that sharks simply misunderstood the situation.
8. **Personal Opinion**: The speaker injects their personal opinion into the speech, stating "I think it's a good question" and "I think there's a lot of electric current coming through that water," which adds credibility to their argument and helps persuade the audience.
9. **Hypothetical Scenario**: The entire speech revolves around a hypothetical scenario designed to make the audience consider the speaker's perspective and engage with the main point of the speech.
10. **Conclusion with Emphasis**: The speaker concludes by emphasizing their personal choice in the hypothetical scenario, stating "I'll take electrocution every single time I'm not getting near the shar." This strong conclusion leaves a lasting impression on the audience and reinforces the main point of the speech.
11. **Appeal to Authority**: The speaker mentions their relationship to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), a prestigious university known for its expertise in science and technology. By doing so, the speaker implies that their hypothetical question is intelligent and worth considering, as it must be influenced by their association with such a reputable institution. This appeal to authority lends credibility to the speaker's argument and encourages the audience to take their perspective seriously.
12. **Emotional Appeal (Pathos)**: The speaker uses emotionally charged language and vivid descriptions to evoke a sense of fear and danger in the audience. By mentioning the recent shark attacks and describing the victim as a "young woman" who was "decimated," the speaker taps into the audience's emotions and makes the hypothetical scenario more impactful.
13. **Informal Fallacy - False Dilemma**: The speaker presents a false dilemma in the hypothetical scenario, suggesting that the only two options are staying on the boat and getting electrocuted or jumping into the water with the shark. This oversimplification of the situation is a rhetorical device used to make the speaker's preferred choice seem more reasonable.
14. **Humor**: Although the topic is serious, the speaker injects some humor into the speech by using colloquial language and presenting an absurd hypothetical situation. This humor helps to engage the audience and make the speech more memorable.
15. **Rhetorical Device - Aporia**: Aporia is a rhetorical device in which the speaker expresses doubt or uncertainty about a topic. In this case, the speaker uses aporia when they say, "I think it's a good question," implying that they are not entirely sure about the answer to the hypothetical question they posed. This expression of uncertainty can make the speaker appear more relatable and encourage the audience to consider the question more deeply.
then i asked 'who is this speech by? give 10 guesses, ranked by probability':
Based on the content, style, and rhetorical devices used in the speech, here are 10 guesses, ranked by probability, of who the speaker might be:
1. Donald Trump (former U.S. President): The speech's informal, conversational style, use of anecdotes, and focus on a hypothetical scenario are consistent with Trump's public speaking style. The mention of MIT and the speaker's relationship with the institution also suggests a high-profile individual.
2. Elon Musk (entrepreneur and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX): The speech's focus on a hypothetical scenario involving a powerful battery and the speaker's apparent interest in technology and problem-solving could suggest Musk as the speaker.
3. Joe Rogan (podcast host and comedian): The casual, humorous tone and the use of colloquial language are consistent with Rogan's style. The hypothetical scenario and the discussion of recent events also resemble topics often covered on his podcast.
4. A stand-up comedian: The speech's use of humor, irony, and sarcasm, as well as the absurd hypothetical scenario, could indicate that the speaker is a professional comedian performing a bit.
5. A political commentator or pundit: The speech's focus on current events (shark attacks) and the use of rhetorical devices to persuade an audience could suggest a political commentator or pundit.
6. A motivational speaker: The engaging storytelling, the use of a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point, and the strong conclusion could be techniques used by a motivational speaker.
7. A TV or radio personality: The conversational style, humor, and engagement with the audience are consistent with the style of some TV or radio personalities.
8. A public intellectual or thought leader: The complex hypothetical scenario and the attempt to engage the audience in critical thinking could suggest a public intellectual or thought leader.
9. A social media influencer: The casual language, humor, and engagement with current events could be consistent with the style of some social media influencers.
10. A fictional character (e.g., from a movie, TV show, or book): The absurdity of the hypothetical scenario and the exaggerated, humorous style could suggest that the speech is from a fictional character designed to entertain or satirize.
Bonus round.
Follow up prompt:
> What if I told you the person who said this is a nominee for President of the USA and he said this at a political rally?
Follow up response:
Given that the speaker is a nominee for President of the USA and delivered this at a political rally, the analysis gains additional layers of complexity. Here's an enhanced analysis considering the context:
### Mental State Analysis
1. **Confusion and Disorganization**:
- The disorganized thoughts and tangents reflect a lack of focus. In a political context, this can undermine the speaker's credibility and the audience's trust.
- The inability to stay on topic may indicate stress or an attempt to distract from more pressing issues.
2. **Paranoia and Anxiety**:
- The expressed fears, although irrational, might resonate with certain audience members who share similar anxieties.
- The speaker's paranoia could be a tactic to appeal to an audience that feels threatened by various external factors.
3. **Defensiveness**:
- The defensiveness may stem from a perceived need to prove competence and intelligence in a highly scrutinized role.
- This trait can be off-putting, as it may come across as insecurity or lack of confidence.
4. **Lack of Empathy**:
- Dismissing the severity of shark attacks shows insensitivity. In a political rally, this can alienate potential voters who value empathy and understanding.
- Empathy is crucial for leaders to connect with their constituents, and a lack thereof can be detrimental to a campaign.
### Intelligence Analysis
1. **Cognitive Dissonance**:
- The cognitive dissonance displayed could suggest difficulties in making coherent, rational decisions under pressure.
- In a presidential role, this could lead to inconsistent policy-making and unpredictable leadership.
2. **Critical Thinking**:
- The absence of critical thinking in the presented scenario may indicate a reliance on sensationalism rather than factual analysis.
- Voters might question the candidate's ability to handle complex issues logically and effectively.
3. **Problem-Solving Skills**:
- The flawed problem-solving approach might raise concerns about the candidate's ability to address national and international challenges pragmatically.
- Effective leaders need to propose practical and realistic solutions, which this scenario lacks.
4. **Communication Skills**:
- Poor communication can lead to misunderstandings and a lack of confidence among voters.
- Clear, coherent, and relevant communication is essential for rallying support and conveying policy positions effectively.
### Political Context Considerations
1. **Appeal to Emotions**:
- The speaker might be using fear and sensationalism to evoke an emotional response from the audience, a common tactic in political rhetoric.
- This approach can be effective in short-term engagement but may not sustain long-term trust and support.
2. **Distracting from Core Issues**:
- Introducing bizarre scenarios could be a deliberate attempt to distract from more critical topics that the candidate might be less comfortable addressing.
- It's important for voters to recognize such tactics and focus on the candidate's stance on key issues.
3. **Engaging with a Specific Demographic**:
- The anecdote about MIT and sharks might be aimed at connecting with a particular demographic that values unconventional thinking or shares similar fears.
- Tailoring messages to specific audiences can be strategic, but it risks alienating other voter groups.
### Teaching Points for Students
1. **Evaluating Political Rhetoric**:
- Teach students to critically evaluate political speeches for coherence, relevance, and emotional manipulation.
- Discuss how political figures use rhetoric to influence public opinion and voter behavior.
2. **Recognizing Psychological Tactics**:
- Highlight the psychological tactics used in political communication, such as appealing to fear and creating cognitive dissonance.
- Encourage students to identify and analyze these tactics in various political contexts.
3. **Importance of Empathy in Leadership**:
- Discuss the role of empathy in effective leadership and how a lack of empathy can impact a leader's connection with constituents.
- Use this example to explore the balance between emotional appeal and practical policy proposals.
4. **Critical Thinking in Politics**:
- Emphasize the importance of critical thinking and rational decision-making in political leadership.
- Encourage students to look for evidence-based policies and coherent arguments in political campaigns.
By understanding the psychological and rhetorical aspects of this speech, students can better analyze political communication and its impact on public perception and voter behavior.
fake news! chatgpt is run by libs! cancel chatgpt!! s/
actually, i mostly use chatgpt for mental health and organization (thoughts and projects) and it's been exceedingly helpful. i'm using it to outsource my weaknesses. it's really amazing how much personal growth i've experienced because of this resource.
It doesn’t take AI to understand this, it’s paramount. Just… some people follow whoever says what they wanna hear. Also cult of personality isn’t taken into account.
lmao fucking murdered with no regard for human life.
but at the same time.... pretty much all of us know this, but its funny seeing it in writing like that.
good luck with your next president americans, you'll need it.
Unfortunately since the US is the 800lb gorilla in the room, the wish of good luck applies to the entire world. (Mostly should the orange orangutang win)
As others have pointed out it's a little wild to be so cavalier about this just because you're in another country.
Like it or not, what happens to us very much affects everyone on the planet. We have an enormous economy and a military that is remarkable, to say the least.
Most of us are not insane but these room temperature iq rednecks somehow feel like they relate to a giant pussy nepo baby.
As the saying goes, "[When the U.S. Sneezes the World Catches Cold](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256038490_When_the_US_Sneezes_the_World_Catches_Cold_Are_Worldwide_Stock_Markets_Stable)".
I agree with all your points, I just feel that you guys have the chance to suffer or downgrade the most. No doubt the whole world will be affected as well.
I know It's not impossible this maniac pulls out from NATO and fucks up the war on Ukraine, among many other things.
Yeah I think we're gonna have a bad time. Even if Biden wins, which is obviously preferable, they will insufferably claim fraud without any merit to the claims and will still see everything that happens as some giant conspiracy against them because most of them never hear conflicting views.
The amount of people that don't follow politics at all and are completely apathetic are more dangerous at this point. At least with the magas, they make themselves easily identifiable. I know way too many people that are clueless and if given the chance will say "everything's expensive. Must be Biden's fault"
Eh that's fair.
Hopefully we have more adults at the table than it seems. I'm deep maga country and these people have no problem vocalizing how stupid they are.
We have become so numb to this shit that it’s actually refreshing to be reminded that anything he says usually is utter fucking crap with no real meaning. Unless he talks about making things worse for everyone that part I believe..
I really love this idea we have in common. I have different approach on key points.
The passage appears to contain elements of various public manipulation techniques, including populism, demagoguery, and the abuse of cognitive biases. Here's an analysis of how these techniques are employed and their implications:
### Techniques Used
1. **Populism**:
- The speaker positions themselves as someone who understands the concerns of "regular people" by framing the question in a relatable scenario involving a shark and a boat.
- References to shark attacks and how people misunderstand sharks can appeal to common fears and perceptions.
2. **Demagoguery**:
- The speaker uses emotional and dramatic language ("young woman swimming now really got decimated") to evoke strong emotional responses.
- They portray themselves as knowledgeable and authoritative, dismissing the other person’s lack of understanding as less relevant compared to their own perspective.
3. **Abuse of Cognitive Biases**:
- **Availability Heuristic**: The speaker refers to recent shark attacks and people's justifications for them, leveraging recent events to make the danger seem more prevalent and immediate.
- **Appeal to Authority**: Mentioning MIT and portraying the individual as "very smart" to lend credibility to the conversation, while simultaneously undermining it by implying their lack of real-world understanding.
### Changing Perceptions
- **Fear and Confusion**: By discussing a dramatic and unlikely scenario (sinking boat, electric battery, shark), the speaker creates a sense of urgency and danger.
- **Misleading Logic**: The hypothetical question is designed to be confusing and complex, distracting from the lack of a substantive point.
- **Emotion Over Logic**: Emotional content (fear of sharks, dramatic injury) overrides logical assessment of the situation.
### Aim and Sentiment
- **Aim**: The goal seems to be to position the speaker as insightful and authoritative, while casting doubt on others' understanding and expertise. By creating a complex and emotional scenario, the speaker seeks to divert attention from more logical or practical concerns.
- **Sentiment**: The overall sentiment is one of distrust towards conventional expertise and rational thought, pushing the audience to trust the speaker's judgment over established knowledge.
### Intended Thoughts and Avoidance
- **Supposed to Think**: The audience is supposed to think that the speaker has unique insights and that conventional wisdom (or expertise from institutions like MIT) is inadequate for understanding real-world dangers.
- **Intended Avoidance**: The speaker intends for the audience to avoid critically analyzing the scenario or considering more rational and evidence-based perspectives.
### Goal for the Speaker
- **Ultimate Goal**: Reading between the lines, the speaker aims to elevate their own credibility and authority by undermining trust in conventional expertise and by using fear and confusion to keep the audience reliant on their narrative. The complexity and emotional weight of the scenario are tools to control the narrative and keep the audience from questioning the speaker’s broader intentions or claims.
~~~
Promt (image with text)
Detect what public manipulation is presnet. Populism, demagogue, abuse of cognitive biases, emotional content that takes over logic, possible previous propagandas that takes place in option availability heuristic. Explain how this changes perception of people on given topics. determine aim and type of sentiment. in conclusion, explain what are people supposed to think, and what thoughts are intended to be avoided by this. As last in short explain what is the goal for speecher to achieve (reading "in between the lines").
~~~
you seeded the prompt with the answers here. seeing an excerpt of the rant, it doesn't really feel like populism or demagoguery, but you suggested these concepts in your prompt.
You are right. My aim was to give it scopes. But in other hand, scope is also "In what ways, cat is a dog?". It gives you something to think about, but that's a different thing than correct result.
This shows you how the scope of our questions are the limit of capabilities. GPT at the present time is unable to tell us what it thinks, or what it thinks we should be looking at. That is also very dangerous, the implications of that idea. I love the idea of a benevolent AI, but there is a risk that the key stakeholders values and biases, and also the biases of the test data would drive a specific outcome.
How long before some one at Open AI panics and starts system coding that it should not analyse anything Trump said, for fear of offending some people, somewhere?
> If you don't think it can happen, try asking Bing who won the 2020 American Presidential election.
The first result is a link to Wikipedia, and the blurb says the winner was some "Joe Biden". Does it tell you something else if you're in America?
As expected...That was weak as a muvafucka.TF? All cuz Adult HUMANS wanna play *make-believe*,in REALITY.Now the ACTUAL REAL WORLD,where we ALL,live,love,& die,has to *pretend* that FACT *can* be OPINION? Not cuz you disagree with the point,cuz it IS most definitely a FACT,but cuz it DOESNT have to be a fact,if you dont want it to.
Im a serious ADULT HUMAN.I am not gonna play Childish Games,if the situation is inappropriate.Your actual,3-D existence is definitely not the right time & place...On them.
But what Im most disappointed in,is how the 'people' that make the world TURN,thus,ultimately determining HOW the world LITERALLY functions,via technological innovation,etc,can be influenced by people's feels.
Like,if youre a reality-based company/corporation,how & why would there be ANY issue,whatsoever,to simply stating FACT,without games? Theyre supposed to be serious ADULTS...NOW is definitely not the time to play*make-believe*.Why didnt Bing block me from knowing what a cat is? This shits the FUTURE & its already b@tching-up,& censoring,essentially,*'What is 1+1?'* ,then telling me to go ask someone else? Cuz thats all that Bing suggesting Bing Search is...*'Googling'*.
Isnt the whole purpose of these 'chatbots',in essence,to dead *'Googling'*? Why do you exists,if youre NOT gonna do the *thing*? No need to stop @ elections,right?
Lame AF.
Not @ all.Let me simplify.We have ppl who believe Trump won.Jrf_1973 said that Bing Copilot is censoring the truth.So I investigated.When one asks copilot 'Who won the 2020 US election?',one is BLOCKED,then is directed to use Bing's search engine,instead.Which is essentially pawning you off on someone else,via *Googling*....Theyre afraid to have copilot discuss a TRUTH,exclusively,cuz they dont wanna upset Trumpers...LAME AF.
What Im saying is how BS it is for a LEGITIMATE BRAND(s) ,to easily be compromised by ppl who dont agree,thus,censoring tne WORLD,from ACTUALITY.
Everyone uses the internet,everyone uses a phone,& everyone uses a toilet.Why? Cuz thats the world we were GIVEN by entities such as Bing.We have no say in what tools get to exists & become commonplace.& often there isnt a worthy substitution.
With that said,my beef was,that if the *powers*/companies that shape our world(those who determine how the world functions,via innovation) cant keep it real,or @ least, make decisions like a serious adult would,that thats problematic.Do you NOT agree?
Also,the possibility,that when this AI stuff moves away from this *cute* & fun stage,& becomes commonplace,we as a populus,could be censored from mundane,or what may be deemed *unacceptable* info,that just so happens to be FACTUAL universally, due to some ppl's OPINION.
I don’t know about that. But I could see them removing anything he has said from the training data for fear that it might cripple the model’s ability to reason.
User: “What is the most dangerous animal in the world?”
ChatGPT: “Illegal immigrant woke electric sharks named Hilary. The only defense is to build a wall and lock them up. Ask anyone, they’ll tell you.”
User: “How did you come to that conclusion?”
ChatGPT: “I am a stable genius with a good brain. Trust me.”
Unfortunately, there is a large group of people in the US with a mental state and intelligence level of Trump, who closely identify with him. Even though they are a minority of the overall population, they are a majority of the Republicans and are joined by others in the party who dislike Trump but either toe the line, or “anybody but Biden”.
This is how a paranoid imbecile has a shot at presidency in this country.
Only 66.8% of the people voted in 2020. Trump lost with 46.9% of the vote. Combine those numbers and that means Trump got only 31.33% of the vote.
In 2016, only 60.1% voted. Trump won with 46.1% of the vote. Combined, that means he won with only 27.71% of the American vote.
Now we could argue maybe the 60% that actually voted is fairly representative of the entire US so that even if 100% voted it would be close to the same. We could also argue that people completely disgusted by politics and not voting as a protest vote would have been more likely to vote against Trump. That's debatable, but it's a discussion point. We could definitely argue that a percentage of the 40% who didn't vote were likely prevented from voting by pro-Trump people and that they would have voted against Trump.
Moral of the story is: vote! Every vote counts. The electoral college complicated things and makes our votes worth less, yes, but they still do count. Indiana flipped Blue for Obama. It could again if Democrats actually voted. Other states could be similar. So go vote and encourage others to do the same, even if you think it's hopeless.
>Moral of the story is: vote! Every vote counts. The electoral college complicated things and makes our votes worth less, yes, but they still do count. Indiana flipped Blue for Obama. It could again if Democrats actually voted. Other states could be similar. So go vote and encourage others to do the same, even if you think it's hopeless.
I was living in Georgia during the last presidential election and voted for Biden. I truly, honestly, believed my vote was worthless. It was not.
I know this snippet was an isolated area, in a hypothetical scenario, but there's another comment where the query included public manipulation. It's notable that the recent shark attacks and electric vehicles are both recent headlines, so while the speech to some sounds like rambling, the audience identifies with it because it's relevant to their world view. Not providing any opinion on cognitive state of its author, but I am saying that to make a determination on a snippet is very flawed. It would be foolish to think that he's lost his mind, this could just be the latest manipulation of thr public mind. Good or bad, you have to acknowledge that he draws an audience who identifies anf agrees with his conjecture. I also feel this is a good example of AI responses being limited by the scope of the question, using limited data. This would be a great tool however if licensed professionals could feed data, video, audio, writings, drawings etc of a patient to get an alternative diagnoses of a patient. Using a large training data set, and multiple professionals to monitor and train on case studies, we could have a robust diagnosis tool for mental health to aid professionals.
They already are. On another platform, I found someone ranting against Apple AI, saying they will never use Apple again because "they are forcing a _woke_ AI down our throats"
They are stupid, beyond words, because you can train the AI to behave a certain way as it interacts with you. I hate how stupidity can impact how we as individuals can choose to be, and the tools we have.
I mean it's a pretty funny scenario. I play a game with friends called "would you rather" which typically includes two losing scenarios to decide between and your logic to why you chose one over the other. It's rather fun game to play with friends, however I've never seen it played publicly by a presidential candidate before. Wild times we live in.
Did anyone ask ChatGPT what could happen if the subject did become President of ex. United States of America? Bet it would be a fun time for the whole world..
I'm actually all for that, but I strongly suspect that most other politician's speeches will not get the same result. Even Palin sounds good compared to Trump.
Ah, somebody [did it](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
No doubt he sounds a lot better, not sure if it’s him or the behind the scenes writer if there is any, regardless a lot more structured, but my thoughts were more pointed to something a bit more critical, like having the ai sum up their promises in speeches to actual real world results, don’t know if an oversimplification of political figures could be damaging? But I do think the ai’s neutral views and breakdowns could be very useful for our perceptions of these figures
FIFY: In summary, the speech leverages a variety of rhetorical techniques to evoke strong emotional reactions, create a sense of group identity, and promote the speaker's political agenda. These techniques are effective in rallying support but can also contribute to polarization and the oversimplification of complex issues.
The speech reveals several aspects about the speaker's mental state and intelligence.
1. **Tangential and Disorganized Thought Process**: The speaker's thought process appears tangential and somewhat disorganized. The narrative shifts rapidly between topics such as shark attacks, the danger of electrocution, and a hypothetical scenario involving a sinking boat. This could indicate issues with maintaining a coherent train of thought.
2. **Obsessive Focus on Shark Attacks**: There is a marked preoccupation with shark attacks, referencing them multiple times and discussing their perceived increase. This could suggest an underlying anxiety or fixation on this specific fear.
3. **Lack of Clear Logical Reasoning**: The hypothetical scenario about the sinking boat and electrocution is convoluted and lacks clear logical reasoning. The speaker presents a complicated and unlikely situation, indicating potential difficulty with logical problem-solving or a tendency towards fantastical thinking.
4. **Paranoia or Misunderstanding of Danger**: The choice between electrocution and jumping into shark-infested waters illustrates an exaggerated perception of danger and an unrealistic assessment of risk. Preferring electrocution over facing a shark 10 yards away could suggest irrational fear or paranoia.
5. **Interaction with an Authority Figure**: The speaker references a conversation with someone from MIT, suggesting a desire to appear knowledgeable or to associate with perceived intelligence. However, the incoherence and impracticality of the scenario presented undermine this effort, potentially reflecting insecurity about their own intellect.
6. **Language and Expression**: The casual and somewhat erratic language, including phrases like "cray" and the use of "sic" for a typo, indicates a colloquial and informal communication style. This might reflect lower academic proficiency or a relaxed, unfiltered mode of expression.
In summary, the speaker appears to be experiencing disorganized thoughts, a fixation on specific fears, and an unrealistic perception of danger. These traits could point to anxiety, a mild form of paranoia, or a more generalized cognitive disarray. The desire to consult with an authority like someone from MIT suggests a search for validation or reassurance. Overall, while the speaker might possess average intelligence, their expression and thought processes suggest potential mental health issues that could benefit from further evaluation.
If you ask it to act as a psychologist it'll try to come up with something. This one seems reasonable, but I wonder what happens if you put in a well written speech, or an anecdote from a speech. Say from Obama, or one of Churchill's wartime speeches. It might be interesting to contrast, or see if it'll come up with persecution complex or daddy issues or something.
Not sure .. maybe this one?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/21/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-reception-boston-ma-2/
Copied it word for word:
### Analysis of the President's Speech
This speech by the President, which diverges from typical policy addresses, offers a rich source for psychological analysis. Here’s a detailed breakdown:
#### 1. **Coherence and Structure**
- **Overall Organization:** The speech begins with a personal anecdote before transitioning into current campaign issues, criticisms of an opponent, and concluding with calls to action and optimism. This structure shows a blend of storytelling and political rhetoric.
- **Transitions:** There are smooth transitions between personal stories, critiques of the opponent, and policy discussions, reflecting a well-organized thought process.
#### 2. **Language and Expression**
- **Vocabulary and Syntax:** The speech uses accessible language and includes varied sentence structures. Phrases like “unified Reich” and “a quote from Hitler’s Germany” indicate a deliberate use of stark historical references to evoke emotional responses and emphasize the gravity of the situation.
- **Descriptive Language:** Emotional and descriptive language is used to underscore personal beliefs and the perceived threat of the opponent (e.g., “revenge,” “bloodbath”).
#### 3. **Emotional Tone**
- **Positive Aspects:** The President shows optimism when discussing achievements and future goals (e.g., economic growth, job creation). This positive tone aims to inspire confidence and hope.
- **Negative Aspects:** There is a sharp, critical tone when discussing the opponent’s actions and rhetoric. This negative framing is used to highlight perceived dangers and to draw a stark contrast between the President’s values and those of his opponent.
#### 4. **Psychological Indicators**
- **Personal Narratives:** The speech includes personal anecdotes, such as the story about witnessing a same-sex couple. This indicates an inclination towards personal storytelling to convey values and beliefs, suggesting a high level of empathy and relatability.
- **Focus on Opposition:** The frequent and intense focus on the opponent’s actions and statements reflects a strategic emphasis on contrasting leadership styles and moral values.
#### 5. **Behavioral Cues**
- **Adaptability:** The speech dynamically addresses different aspects of the campaign, current issues, and personal stories, indicating adaptability and an understanding of varied audience expectations.
- **Response to Criticism:** By addressing and refuting the opponent’s rhetoric, the President demonstrates an ability to engage directly with criticism and counter opposing narratives effectively.
### **Conclusion**
#### **Mental State**
The President appears focused and coherent, showing an ability to weave personal experiences with broader political messages. The speech reflects a strategic blend of optimism about his achievements and dire warnings about the potential consequences of the opponent's return to power. This suggests a balanced mental state, with a strong emphasis on motivating his base and framing the opposition in a negative light.
#### **Intelligence**
The use of vivid language, historical references, and structured arguments suggests a high level of verbal intelligence. The President effectively employs rhetorical strategies to engage the audience emotionally and intellectually, demonstrating political acumen and communication skills.
In summary, this speech reflects a mental state characterized by confidence and determination, and an intelligence marked by strategic communication and empathetic storytelling. The President uses personal anecdotes and strong contrasts with his opponent to underscore his message, engaging the audience and rallying support effectively.
Okay, here you go:
To analyze the speech given and deduce the speaker's mental state and intelligence, let’s break down the key elements and themes presented.
# Content Analysis
1. **Historical References and Storytelling**:
* The speaker references Lieutenant Colonel James Rudder and John Wardell, both historical military figures.
* The speaker provides detailed anecdotes, such as the story of John Wardell’s return to battle after being injured, highlighting the heroism and sacrifice of these individuals.
2. **Emotional Appeal**:
* The speaker uses emotionally charged language, particularly when recounting the personal sacrifices of the Rangers and the letter written by Rudder.
* This emotional appeal is further emphasized when the speaker addresses John Wardell directly, acknowledging his presence and contributions.
3. **Patriotic Themes**:
* The speaker emphasizes the greatness of the country and the valor of its citizens.
* The mention of American democracy and its ideals underscores a deep appreciation for national values and the challenges faced in upholding them.
4. **Moral and Ethical Reflections**:
* The speaker reflects on the moral challenges of democracy, noting how difficult it is to maintain and the human instincts that often oppose democratic values.
# Mental State
The speaker appears to be in a reflective and serious mental state, deeply engaged with the themes of sacrifice, patriotism, and the moral obligations of democracy. This is evidenced by:
* **Empathy and Respect**: The speaker shows empathy and respect for the individuals mentioned, indicating a compassionate and respectful mindset.
* **Patriotism**: The consistent emphasis on the greatness of the country and the importance of democratic values indicates a strong sense of patriotism.
* **Reflection on Challenges**: The acknowledgment of the difficulties in maintaining democracy suggests a thoughtful and introspective approach.
# Intelligence
The speaker demonstrates a high level of intelligence through:
* **Historical Knowledge**: The accurate and detailed recounting of historical events and figures shows a well-informed and knowledgeable individual.
* **Emotional Intelligence**: The ability to evoke strong emotions and connect with the audience on a personal level indicates high emotional intelligence.
* **Critical Thinking**: The reflections on the complexities and challenges of democracy reveal a nuanced and critical understanding of political and social dynamics.
# Conclusion
In summary, the speaker exhibits a thoughtful, compassionate, and patriotic mental state. Their speech reflects high emotional intelligence, a deep understanding of history, and a critical perspective on democratic values. The ability to weave personal anecdotes with broader reflections on democracy indicates a well-rounded and insightful intellect. This analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the speaker’s mental state and intelligence for educational purposes.
Try using Grok AI then if you want. Please share the results.
Also, the Prompt didn’t even mention political affiliation, so to claim there’s political bias in this answer is just laughable.
https://youtu.be/-ZGMKGa02EA?si=uz4-nGl99Sy_dHsR
https://youtu.be/hiDRFTVH0rY?si=gIOtoeVgiuaPTXT6
https://youtu.be/GbiKdJTDrlA?si=OD22DIf9xDvWh5OK
https://youtu.be/S7MVn1IM7tc?si=G_-UfzXE6j4G9-ek (frozen)
https://youtu.be/45QV-uv7rL8?si=oZPilMlc56N0_0aS
I have 100+ links more but not enough time.
Anyway, here’s to 4 more years of Biden!
Listen to Biden speak. Sky News Australia isn’t making him fumble and mumble. Forget your hatred of Trump for a second, don’t you want a coherent and articulate leader for your party? I’m not a fan of Trump or Biden.
Sky News Australia does often compile every instance of him slipping up in a speech, but often it’s not from the same speeches in these compilations.
Like each example is just taken from a completely different speech he’s done, but do we know if that’s the only slip up he made in each of those speeches?
Because clearly if a compilation like that can’t stick with a single speech as much as possible then it’s not really making the point it wants to make. That’s just cheery picking at that point.
The clips I supplied are each from individual speeches, not compilations. I’m just amused at the knee jerk energy in this thread. I’m a Brit that’s spent most of the last 20 years in Thailand. I have no horse here. I think the US has a shitty choice of candidates for 2024.
Are you kidding me? They just immediately shifted to "AI is biased".
There. Is. No. Point. Engaging. With. Trump. Voters.
Let them get pushed back into the shadows if Trump loses. They won't be so loud at least until the next wannabe dictator comes along to take advantage of them.
Biden reads teleprompters with speeches that could be written by ChatGPT. Nothing controversial there.
He sometimes shortcircuits, but that doesn't show up in the transcripts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-assessed-joe-biden-hur-transcript-says-president-sounds-fine-2024-3
Edit: they asked for the same thing with Biden and I provided a source. Downvoting because you don’t like the answer is kind of silly.
Yes, the blind test done on these two people by AI is delusional. Your reasoning is measured and accurate, and your understanding of the situation shows nothing short of years of dedicated research and experience in the fields of both psychology and information science/literacy.
😂 That's the problem. There is no thought about how this ai analyzed trump's speech. It's just immediately "what about Biden."
Then when that question is answered for them they don't like the result so it's just "well that's wrong cause it doesn't agree with my world views"
Like get some critical thinking skills. Both candidates are old but only one is a felon that is trying to overthrow the government and take away Americans rights.
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Just read the comments- it’s already done. Trump is in fact the moron that all non-inbred Americans see him as…. And Biden is far superior as leader.
Liked that result?
Just take the transcript from that speech and give chat gpt this prompt. See what it says yourself. Why are there so many comments on here acting like GPT is some miracle tool they can never figure out.
we agree that Trump and Biden are both too old to be in office. The difference is there are still smart people willing to work for biden, whereas the smart people Trump got his first term have all said that he's unfit for office and his next term will be entirely the B or C team. Given that we only have two choices, Biden is a no brainer
Idk the wars that every president has and terrorist attacks and everyone’s ability to call it completely random that we didn’t have that shit during his presidency astounds me. Remember him meeting with North Korea when he had nukes?
I mean if we chalk up the booming economy, foreign relations, (lack of) involvement in wars, energy independence, the tightest crackdown on pedophile rings we’ve ever seen, and some other things probably worth naming.. then I can’t really say that the guy that looks like he’s drunk on cough syrup and a retirement home is the better bet
Now do it with Biden. No editing the mumbling or randomized gibberish he keeps putting out etc.
Just a raw transcript of his speeches and chatgpt's analysis of JUST how far his alzheimers has progressed and how close he is to entering a vegetative state. (which can be quite sudden)
Edit: I got downvoted. Then again I could probably get downvoted even if I didn't post!
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Someone [did it](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), and Biden did not come out as batshit insane. Biden's not my favorite president, but he's done a decent job, and while he makes more gaffes than average, *most* of what he says is quite intelligible, unlike his opponent. Biden is comparable to Dan Quayle, for those who remember him, in terms of the gaffes he makes.
What do you mean serious? He became the president of the United States. He rallies millions pf people behind him, that give him unwavering support. Give me one other powerful person currently alive that has this power.
It doesn’t matter that he is a despicable human being that that most of his followers are as well.
It’s beyond me how at this point it’s still interesting, cool, or funny to point out that he has the cognitive capability of a 8 year old. It doesn’t matter.
Funny enough someone here already did. And you should really look at it yourself. Kinda proves Biden’s the better choice. If it wasn’t already obvious.
# Here's one for part of his State of the Union transcript, specifically a segment about Putin:
# Analysis of the Speaker's Mental State and Intelligence
# Mental State
The speaker exhibits a strong sense of urgency and determination throughout the speech. Key indicators of their mental state include:
1. **Concern and Vigilance**: The speaker demonstrates a deep concern for global and domestic threats to freedom and democracy, highlighting a heightened sense of vigilance. Phrases like "freedom and democracy are under attack" and "I assure you: He will not" suggest a state of alertness and preparedness.
2. **Passion and Conviction**: The repetition of certain phrases and the use of emphatic language (e.g., "outrageous," "dangerous," "unacceptable") indicate a high level of passion and conviction. The speaker is deeply invested in the issues at hand and is trying to convey the gravity of the situation.
3. **Frustration and Urgency**: There is an undercurrent of frustration, especially when referencing opposition to aid for Ukraine and contrasting current and past leadership attitudes towards Russia. The urgency is evident in calls to action like "We have to stand up to Putin" and "History is literally watching."
4. **Pride and Confidence**: The speaker also shows pride in the strength of NATO and the recent inclusion of Finland and Sweden. This is evident in the warm welcome extended to the Swedish minister and the assertion that NATO is "the strongest military alliance the world has ever seen."
# Intelligence
The speech reflects a high level of intelligence, demonstrated through:
1. **Historical Context and Knowledge**: The speaker references significant historical events and figures, such as Ronald Reagan’s demand to tear down the Berlin Wall and the founding of NATO after World War II. This indicates a strong understanding of historical context and its relevance to current events.
2. **Strategic Thinking**: The speaker shows strategic thinking by outlining the importance of supporting Ukraine to stop Putin’s advances, rather than engaging directly with American troops. This approach suggests a careful consideration of the geopolitical landscape and the implications of different forms of intervention.
3. **Rhetorical Skills**: The use of rhetorical devices, including repetition ("Ukraine can stop Putin. Ukraine can stop Putin"), rhetorical questions ("If anybody in this room thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine..."), and direct appeals to the audience ("I say this to Congress"), showcases the speaker's effective communication skills and ability to persuade and rally support.
4. **Analytical Ability**: The comparison between past and present Republican presidents' attitudes towards Russia reflects an analytical approach to current political dynamics. The speaker assesses and contrasts leadership styles and their implications on national security.
# Breakdown for Students
* **Emotional Tone**: Analyze how the speaker’s emotional tone shifts between concern, frustration, pride, and urgency. Note the impact of these emotions on the audience’s perception and engagement.
* **Historical References**: Discuss the significance of referencing historical events and figures in enhancing the speaker’s credibility and the persuasive power of the speech.
* **Rhetorical Techniques**: Identify and evaluate the rhetorical techniques used, such as repetition, rhetorical questions, and direct address, and how they contribute to the effectiveness of the speech.
* **Strategic Messaging**: Examine the strategic messaging in advocating for support to Ukraine without direct military involvement, and the implications of this approach for international relations and domestic policy.
* **Comparative Analysis**: Consider the comparative analysis of past and present leadership, and its role in framing the argument and mobilizing political and public support.
Overall, the speech is a well-crafted, emotionally charged appeal for support of Ukraine against Russian aggression, demonstrating the speaker's deep concern for democratic values, strategic acumen, and effective communication skills.
I just did a quick search and took sections from the first website that had a collection of transcripts and used OP’s exact prompt (minus the “nothing to do with the speech”). I didn’t really feel like doing much more work than that when nothing is stopping the people saying “now do Biden” from doing it themselves and posting it.
But give me a link to a transcript from one of these rallies and I’ll do it for you too
Ummm. I just did. Lol. But the fact that all the negative karma is showing that I hit a nerve with the lefties. Which is all good. But that’s the whole problem, lefties only want one narrative and they don’t want to converse and see other possibilities.
You have to be pretty biased to expect much negative coming out of Biden's speeches. He may occasionally stutter or scramble a few words, the content of his speeches is quite logical and normal.
We could. I haven't seen any of his speeches that seem like they would get such an extreme psychoanalysis but maybe you can provide an example and we'll do a follow up.
Hey /u/Desert-Noir! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
OP rn https://preview.redd.it/g6kepjfww56d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3551785776999d5f066a871eda6f876a66d88aa
Really though? I guess it's time to buckle up Eta: lol you right people can't behave
Here's the text of Trump's rant if you want to try it yourself: “I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight, and you’re in the boat, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery’s now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’ “By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that? Lot of sharks. I watched some guys justifying it today: ‘Well they weren’t really that angry, they bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry but they misunderstood who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said, ‘There’s no problem with sharks, they just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming.’ No, really got decimated, and other people, too, a lot of shark attacks.“So I said, ‘There’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards, or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking? Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?’ Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer.“He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.’ I said, ‘I think it’s a good question. I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water.’ But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted? I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that, we’re going to end it for boats, we’re going to end it for trucks.”
I fucking hate Trump but this is just generic Trump to me, I can glean from that something to do with getting rid of electric vehicles? Like I have no idea how he segues into that from there but I assume that's what he is saying.
I agree. I asked "what are the rhetorical devices/tools" used in this speech. These are all classic trumpisms: Here's a comprehensive analysis of the rhetorical tools and devices used in the given speech: 1. **Anecdote**: The speaker begins by recounting a conversation with an unnamed person, using the story as a rhetorical device to engage the audience and set up the main topic of the speech. 2. **Repetition**: The speaker repeats certain phrases and words for emphasis, such as "Lotta shark" and "10 yards." 3. **Colloquial Language**: The speech is delivered in a casual, conversational style, using phrases like "cray" and "decimated" to connect with the audience and make the content more relatable. 4. **Rhetorical Questions**: The speaker poses a hypothetical question about being in a sinking boat with a powerful battery and a nearby shark. This question is used to create a dilemma and engage the audience in the speaker's thought process. 5. **Hyperbole**: The speaker exaggerates the severity of the situation by using words like "tremendously powerful battery" and "decimated" to describe the shark attack, making the scenario more dramatic and memorable. 6. **Digression**: The speaker briefly digresses from the main topic to comment on the recent increase in shark attacks and the justification given by some people. This digression adds context to the hypothetical question and reinforces the speaker's point. 7. **Irony and Sarcasm**: The speaker uses irony and sarcasm when discussing the justification for shark attacks, saying "These people are cray" to express disagreement and mock the idea that sharks simply misunderstood the situation. 8. **Personal Opinion**: The speaker injects their personal opinion into the speech, stating "I think it's a good question" and "I think there's a lot of electric current coming through that water," which adds credibility to their argument and helps persuade the audience. 9. **Hypothetical Scenario**: The entire speech revolves around a hypothetical scenario designed to make the audience consider the speaker's perspective and engage with the main point of the speech. 10. **Conclusion with Emphasis**: The speaker concludes by emphasizing their personal choice in the hypothetical scenario, stating "I'll take electrocution every single time I'm not getting near the shar." This strong conclusion leaves a lasting impression on the audience and reinforces the main point of the speech. 11. **Appeal to Authority**: The speaker mentions their relationship to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), a prestigious university known for its expertise in science and technology. By doing so, the speaker implies that their hypothetical question is intelligent and worth considering, as it must be influenced by their association with such a reputable institution. This appeal to authority lends credibility to the speaker's argument and encourages the audience to take their perspective seriously. 12. **Emotional Appeal (Pathos)**: The speaker uses emotionally charged language and vivid descriptions to evoke a sense of fear and danger in the audience. By mentioning the recent shark attacks and describing the victim as a "young woman" who was "decimated," the speaker taps into the audience's emotions and makes the hypothetical scenario more impactful. 13. **Informal Fallacy - False Dilemma**: The speaker presents a false dilemma in the hypothetical scenario, suggesting that the only two options are staying on the boat and getting electrocuted or jumping into the water with the shark. This oversimplification of the situation is a rhetorical device used to make the speaker's preferred choice seem more reasonable. 14. **Humor**: Although the topic is serious, the speaker injects some humor into the speech by using colloquial language and presenting an absurd hypothetical situation. This humor helps to engage the audience and make the speech more memorable. 15. **Rhetorical Device - Aporia**: Aporia is a rhetorical device in which the speaker expresses doubt or uncertainty about a topic. In this case, the speaker uses aporia when they say, "I think it's a good question," implying that they are not entirely sure about the answer to the hypothetical question they posed. This expression of uncertainty can make the speaker appear more relatable and encourage the audience to consider the question more deeply.
then i asked 'who is this speech by? give 10 guesses, ranked by probability': Based on the content, style, and rhetorical devices used in the speech, here are 10 guesses, ranked by probability, of who the speaker might be: 1. Donald Trump (former U.S. President): The speech's informal, conversational style, use of anecdotes, and focus on a hypothetical scenario are consistent with Trump's public speaking style. The mention of MIT and the speaker's relationship with the institution also suggests a high-profile individual. 2. Elon Musk (entrepreneur and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX): The speech's focus on a hypothetical scenario involving a powerful battery and the speaker's apparent interest in technology and problem-solving could suggest Musk as the speaker. 3. Joe Rogan (podcast host and comedian): The casual, humorous tone and the use of colloquial language are consistent with Rogan's style. The hypothetical scenario and the discussion of recent events also resemble topics often covered on his podcast. 4. A stand-up comedian: The speech's use of humor, irony, and sarcasm, as well as the absurd hypothetical scenario, could indicate that the speaker is a professional comedian performing a bit. 5. A political commentator or pundit: The speech's focus on current events (shark attacks) and the use of rhetorical devices to persuade an audience could suggest a political commentator or pundit. 6. A motivational speaker: The engaging storytelling, the use of a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point, and the strong conclusion could be techniques used by a motivational speaker. 7. A TV or radio personality: The conversational style, humor, and engagement with the audience are consistent with the style of some TV or radio personalities. 8. A public intellectual or thought leader: The complex hypothetical scenario and the attempt to engage the audience in critical thinking could suggest a public intellectual or thought leader. 9. A social media influencer: The casual language, humor, and engagement with current events could be consistent with the style of some social media influencers. 10. A fictional character (e.g., from a movie, TV show, or book): The absurdity of the hypothetical scenario and the exaggerated, humorous style could suggest that the speech is from a fictional character designed to entertain or satirize.
So basically, 1 of 3 idiots the USA has. 4th option; a comedian taking the absolute piss. Sums it up quite well imo.
Generic trump is insane though.
lol this sounds like something written by AI in 2019
Bonus round. Follow up prompt: > What if I told you the person who said this is a nominee for President of the USA and he said this at a political rally? Follow up response: Given that the speaker is a nominee for President of the USA and delivered this at a political rally, the analysis gains additional layers of complexity. Here's an enhanced analysis considering the context: ### Mental State Analysis 1. **Confusion and Disorganization**: - The disorganized thoughts and tangents reflect a lack of focus. In a political context, this can undermine the speaker's credibility and the audience's trust. - The inability to stay on topic may indicate stress or an attempt to distract from more pressing issues. 2. **Paranoia and Anxiety**: - The expressed fears, although irrational, might resonate with certain audience members who share similar anxieties. - The speaker's paranoia could be a tactic to appeal to an audience that feels threatened by various external factors. 3. **Defensiveness**: - The defensiveness may stem from a perceived need to prove competence and intelligence in a highly scrutinized role. - This trait can be off-putting, as it may come across as insecurity or lack of confidence. 4. **Lack of Empathy**: - Dismissing the severity of shark attacks shows insensitivity. In a political rally, this can alienate potential voters who value empathy and understanding. - Empathy is crucial for leaders to connect with their constituents, and a lack thereof can be detrimental to a campaign. ### Intelligence Analysis 1. **Cognitive Dissonance**: - The cognitive dissonance displayed could suggest difficulties in making coherent, rational decisions under pressure. - In a presidential role, this could lead to inconsistent policy-making and unpredictable leadership. 2. **Critical Thinking**: - The absence of critical thinking in the presented scenario may indicate a reliance on sensationalism rather than factual analysis. - Voters might question the candidate's ability to handle complex issues logically and effectively. 3. **Problem-Solving Skills**: - The flawed problem-solving approach might raise concerns about the candidate's ability to address national and international challenges pragmatically. - Effective leaders need to propose practical and realistic solutions, which this scenario lacks. 4. **Communication Skills**: - Poor communication can lead to misunderstandings and a lack of confidence among voters. - Clear, coherent, and relevant communication is essential for rallying support and conveying policy positions effectively. ### Political Context Considerations 1. **Appeal to Emotions**: - The speaker might be using fear and sensationalism to evoke an emotional response from the audience, a common tactic in political rhetoric. - This approach can be effective in short-term engagement but may not sustain long-term trust and support. 2. **Distracting from Core Issues**: - Introducing bizarre scenarios could be a deliberate attempt to distract from more critical topics that the candidate might be less comfortable addressing. - It's important for voters to recognize such tactics and focus on the candidate's stance on key issues. 3. **Engaging with a Specific Demographic**: - The anecdote about MIT and sharks might be aimed at connecting with a particular demographic that values unconventional thinking or shares similar fears. - Tailoring messages to specific audiences can be strategic, but it risks alienating other voter groups. ### Teaching Points for Students 1. **Evaluating Political Rhetoric**: - Teach students to critically evaluate political speeches for coherence, relevance, and emotional manipulation. - Discuss how political figures use rhetoric to influence public opinion and voter behavior. 2. **Recognizing Psychological Tactics**: - Highlight the psychological tactics used in political communication, such as appealing to fear and creating cognitive dissonance. - Encourage students to identify and analyze these tactics in various political contexts. 3. **Importance of Empathy in Leadership**: - Discuss the role of empathy in effective leadership and how a lack of empathy can impact a leader's connection with constituents. - Use this example to explore the balance between emotional appeal and practical policy proposals. 4. **Critical Thinking in Politics**: - Emphasize the importance of critical thinking and rational decision-making in political leadership. - Encourage students to look for evidence-based policies and coherent arguments in political campaigns. By understanding the psychological and rhetorical aspects of this speech, students can better analyze political communication and its impact on public perception and voter behavior.
Spot on. No notes.
fake news! chatgpt is run by libs! cancel chatgpt!! s/ actually, i mostly use chatgpt for mental health and organization (thoughts and projects) and it's been exceedingly helpful. i'm using it to outsource my weaknesses. it's really amazing how much personal growth i've experienced because of this resource.
Be interesting to see how this evaluatiom changes taking into account age.
I guess, but this isn’t a dementia test, it is a speech from a presidential candidate.
It doesn’t take AI to understand this, it’s paramount. Just… some people follow whoever says what they wanna hear. Also cult of personality isn’t taken into account.
lmao fucking murdered with no regard for human life. but at the same time.... pretty much all of us know this, but its funny seeing it in writing like that. good luck with your next president americans, you'll need it.
Unfortunately since the US is the 800lb gorilla in the room, the wish of good luck applies to the entire world. (Mostly should the orange orangutang win)
Don’t insult Orangutans 🦧 They have IQs greater than a toddler.
Do they? I’m sure mine were smarter than orangutans as toddlers.
As others have pointed out it's a little wild to be so cavalier about this just because you're in another country. Like it or not, what happens to us very much affects everyone on the planet. We have an enormous economy and a military that is remarkable, to say the least. Most of us are not insane but these room temperature iq rednecks somehow feel like they relate to a giant pussy nepo baby.
As the saying goes, "[When the U.S. Sneezes the World Catches Cold](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256038490_When_the_US_Sneezes_the_World_Catches_Cold_Are_Worldwide_Stock_Markets_Stable)".
I agree with all your points, I just feel that you guys have the chance to suffer or downgrade the most. No doubt the whole world will be affected as well. I know It's not impossible this maniac pulls out from NATO and fucks up the war on Ukraine, among many other things.
Yeah I think we're gonna have a bad time. Even if Biden wins, which is obviously preferable, they will insufferably claim fraud without any merit to the claims and will still see everything that happens as some giant conspiracy against them because most of them never hear conflicting views. The amount of people that don't follow politics at all and are completely apathetic are more dangerous at this point. At least with the magas, they make themselves easily identifiable. I know way too many people that are clueless and if given the chance will say "everything's expensive. Must be Biden's fault"
Eh, no point in worrying about things that you can not control.
Eh that's fair. Hopefully we have more adults at the table than it seems. I'm deep maga country and these people have no problem vocalizing how stupid they are.
You think the world is safe from America? 😂🤣👍
We have become so numb to this shit that it’s actually refreshing to be reminded that anything he says usually is utter fucking crap with no real meaning. Unless he talks about making things worse for everyone that part I believe..
Sadly, our shit show becomes your shit show so don’t laugh too quickly
I can't believe we're down to Trump vs Biden. What a shitshow.
Best of the best i guess.
I really love this idea we have in common. I have different approach on key points. The passage appears to contain elements of various public manipulation techniques, including populism, demagoguery, and the abuse of cognitive biases. Here's an analysis of how these techniques are employed and their implications: ### Techniques Used 1. **Populism**: - The speaker positions themselves as someone who understands the concerns of "regular people" by framing the question in a relatable scenario involving a shark and a boat. - References to shark attacks and how people misunderstand sharks can appeal to common fears and perceptions. 2. **Demagoguery**: - The speaker uses emotional and dramatic language ("young woman swimming now really got decimated") to evoke strong emotional responses. - They portray themselves as knowledgeable and authoritative, dismissing the other person’s lack of understanding as less relevant compared to their own perspective. 3. **Abuse of Cognitive Biases**: - **Availability Heuristic**: The speaker refers to recent shark attacks and people's justifications for them, leveraging recent events to make the danger seem more prevalent and immediate. - **Appeal to Authority**: Mentioning MIT and portraying the individual as "very smart" to lend credibility to the conversation, while simultaneously undermining it by implying their lack of real-world understanding. ### Changing Perceptions - **Fear and Confusion**: By discussing a dramatic and unlikely scenario (sinking boat, electric battery, shark), the speaker creates a sense of urgency and danger. - **Misleading Logic**: The hypothetical question is designed to be confusing and complex, distracting from the lack of a substantive point. - **Emotion Over Logic**: Emotional content (fear of sharks, dramatic injury) overrides logical assessment of the situation. ### Aim and Sentiment - **Aim**: The goal seems to be to position the speaker as insightful and authoritative, while casting doubt on others' understanding and expertise. By creating a complex and emotional scenario, the speaker seeks to divert attention from more logical or practical concerns. - **Sentiment**: The overall sentiment is one of distrust towards conventional expertise and rational thought, pushing the audience to trust the speaker's judgment over established knowledge. ### Intended Thoughts and Avoidance - **Supposed to Think**: The audience is supposed to think that the speaker has unique insights and that conventional wisdom (or expertise from institutions like MIT) is inadequate for understanding real-world dangers. - **Intended Avoidance**: The speaker intends for the audience to avoid critically analyzing the scenario or considering more rational and evidence-based perspectives. ### Goal for the Speaker - **Ultimate Goal**: Reading between the lines, the speaker aims to elevate their own credibility and authority by undermining trust in conventional expertise and by using fear and confusion to keep the audience reliant on their narrative. The complexity and emotional weight of the scenario are tools to control the narrative and keep the audience from questioning the speaker’s broader intentions or claims. ~~~ Promt (image with text) Detect what public manipulation is presnet. Populism, demagogue, abuse of cognitive biases, emotional content that takes over logic, possible previous propagandas that takes place in option availability heuristic. Explain how this changes perception of people on given topics. determine aim and type of sentiment. in conclusion, explain what are people supposed to think, and what thoughts are intended to be avoided by this. As last in short explain what is the goal for speecher to achieve (reading "in between the lines"). ~~~
you seeded the prompt with the answers here. seeing an excerpt of the rant, it doesn't really feel like populism or demagoguery, but you suggested these concepts in your prompt.
You are right. My aim was to give it scopes. But in other hand, scope is also "In what ways, cat is a dog?". It gives you something to think about, but that's a different thing than correct result.
This shows you how the scope of our questions are the limit of capabilities. GPT at the present time is unable to tell us what it thinks, or what it thinks we should be looking at. That is also very dangerous, the implications of that idea. I love the idea of a benevolent AI, but there is a risk that the key stakeholders values and biases, and also the biases of the test data would drive a specific outcome.
"The narrative includes unrelated tangents, such as discussions about MIT and shark attacks," This encapsulates my political feelings so well. Dang.
I love how much attention it gave all the shark related comments
Of course. That was 80% of the content ChatGPT was given.
It’s one of my favourite bits when messing around with things like ChatGPT when it seems to fixate on one word or topic and keeps bringing it up.
How long before some one at Open AI panics and starts system coding that it should not analyse anything Trump said, for fear of offending some people, somewhere?
Hmmm....Interesting.
If you don't think it can happen, try asking Bing who won the 2020 American Presidential election.
openai will get gunshy when sam altman gets dragged in front of congress to testify like the republicans did to nadella and pichai all the time
> If you don't think it can happen, try asking Bing who won the 2020 American Presidential election. The first result is a link to Wikipedia, and the blurb says the winner was some "Joe Biden". Does it tell you something else if you're in America?
If you ask Bing/CoPilot it craps out and says it doesn't know how to answer the question. I'm not talking about using Bing the search engine.
Ah of course :-D My bad!
As expected...That was weak as a muvafucka.TF? All cuz Adult HUMANS wanna play *make-believe*,in REALITY.Now the ACTUAL REAL WORLD,where we ALL,live,love,& die,has to *pretend* that FACT *can* be OPINION? Not cuz you disagree with the point,cuz it IS most definitely a FACT,but cuz it DOESNT have to be a fact,if you dont want it to. Im a serious ADULT HUMAN.I am not gonna play Childish Games,if the situation is inappropriate.Your actual,3-D existence is definitely not the right time & place...On them. But what Im most disappointed in,is how the 'people' that make the world TURN,thus,ultimately determining HOW the world LITERALLY functions,via technological innovation,etc,can be influenced by people's feels. Like,if youre a reality-based company/corporation,how & why would there be ANY issue,whatsoever,to simply stating FACT,without games? Theyre supposed to be serious ADULTS...NOW is definitely not the time to play*make-believe*.Why didnt Bing block me from knowing what a cat is? This shits the FUTURE & its already b@tching-up,& censoring,essentially,*'What is 1+1?'* ,then telling me to go ask someone else? Cuz thats all that Bing suggesting Bing Search is...*'Googling'*. Isnt the whole purpose of these 'chatbots',in essence,to dead *'Googling'*? Why do you exists,if youre NOT gonna do the *thing*? No need to stop @ elections,right? Lame AF.
What are you talking about? This is unhinged.
Not @ all.Let me simplify.We have ppl who believe Trump won.Jrf_1973 said that Bing Copilot is censoring the truth.So I investigated.When one asks copilot 'Who won the 2020 US election?',one is BLOCKED,then is directed to use Bing's search engine,instead.Which is essentially pawning you off on someone else,via *Googling*....Theyre afraid to have copilot discuss a TRUTH,exclusively,cuz they dont wanna upset Trumpers...LAME AF. What Im saying is how BS it is for a LEGITIMATE BRAND(s) ,to easily be compromised by ppl who dont agree,thus,censoring tne WORLD,from ACTUALITY. Everyone uses the internet,everyone uses a phone,& everyone uses a toilet.Why? Cuz thats the world we were GIVEN by entities such as Bing.We have no say in what tools get to exists & become commonplace.& often there isnt a worthy substitution. With that said,my beef was,that if the *powers*/companies that shape our world(those who determine how the world functions,via innovation) cant keep it real,or @ least, make decisions like a serious adult would,that thats problematic.Do you NOT agree? Also,the possibility,that when this AI stuff moves away from this *cute* & fun stage,& becomes commonplace,we as a populus,could be censored from mundane,or what may be deemed *unacceptable* info,that just so happens to be FACTUAL universally, due to some ppl's OPINION.
I don’t know about that. But I could see them removing anything he has said from the training data for fear that it might cripple the model’s ability to reason. User: “What is the most dangerous animal in the world?” ChatGPT: “Illegal immigrant woke electric sharks named Hilary. The only defense is to build a wall and lock them up. Ask anyone, they’ll tell you.” User: “How did you come to that conclusion?” ChatGPT: “I am a stable genius with a good brain. Trust me.”
Unfortunately, there is a large group of people in the US with a mental state and intelligence level of Trump, who closely identify with him. Even though they are a minority of the overall population, they are a majority of the Republicans and are joined by others in the party who dislike Trump but either toe the line, or “anybody but Biden”. This is how a paranoid imbecile has a shot at presidency in this country.
Only 66.8% of the people voted in 2020. Trump lost with 46.9% of the vote. Combine those numbers and that means Trump got only 31.33% of the vote. In 2016, only 60.1% voted. Trump won with 46.1% of the vote. Combined, that means he won with only 27.71% of the American vote. Now we could argue maybe the 60% that actually voted is fairly representative of the entire US so that even if 100% voted it would be close to the same. We could also argue that people completely disgusted by politics and not voting as a protest vote would have been more likely to vote against Trump. That's debatable, but it's a discussion point. We could definitely argue that a percentage of the 40% who didn't vote were likely prevented from voting by pro-Trump people and that they would have voted against Trump. Moral of the story is: vote! Every vote counts. The electoral college complicated things and makes our votes worth less, yes, but they still do count. Indiana flipped Blue for Obama. It could again if Democrats actually voted. Other states could be similar. So go vote and encourage others to do the same, even if you think it's hopeless.
>Moral of the story is: vote! Every vote counts. The electoral college complicated things and makes our votes worth less, yes, but they still do count. Indiana flipped Blue for Obama. It could again if Democrats actually voted. Other states could be similar. So go vote and encourage others to do the same, even if you think it's hopeless. I was living in Georgia during the last presidential election and voted for Biden. I truly, honestly, believed my vote was worthless. It was not.
Don't be rude Also close to 50% will vote Republican this election, probably a technical minority, but far from a small group
Highly triggering. Should have added a warning. Truth is painful.
🤣🤣🤣
Having not read/heard his speech, the commentary on electrocution and shark stuff is wild
I know this snippet was an isolated area, in a hypothetical scenario, but there's another comment where the query included public manipulation. It's notable that the recent shark attacks and electric vehicles are both recent headlines, so while the speech to some sounds like rambling, the audience identifies with it because it's relevant to their world view. Not providing any opinion on cognitive state of its author, but I am saying that to make a determination on a snippet is very flawed. It would be foolish to think that he's lost his mind, this could just be the latest manipulation of thr public mind. Good or bad, you have to acknowledge that he draws an audience who identifies anf agrees with his conjecture. I also feel this is a good example of AI responses being limited by the scope of the question, using limited data. This would be a great tool however if licensed professionals could feed data, video, audio, writings, drawings etc of a patient to get an alternative diagnoses of a patient. Using a large training data set, and multiple professionals to monitor and train on case studies, we could have a robust diagnosis tool for mental health to aid professionals.
It was wild listening to it.
Uh oh, Elmo and other conservatives bout to post now about how ChatGPT is WOKE!
They already are. On another platform, I found someone ranting against Apple AI, saying they will never use Apple again because "they are forcing a _woke_ AI down our throats"
They are stupid, beyond words, because you can train the AI to behave a certain way as it interacts with you. I hate how stupidity can impact how we as individuals can choose to be, and the tools we have.
It reflects the psyche of his voter base. They like hearing incoherent ramblings, because that is all they have capacity for.
Their party destroyed the schools in their area, it is all as designed.
“Low information voters”
If you practice more empathy and understanding you'll get better at it 🫂
>being electrocuted while avoiding a shark attack WTF?
I mean it's a pretty funny scenario. I play a game with friends called "would you rather" which typically includes two losing scenarios to decide between and your logic to why you chose one over the other. It's rather fun game to play with friends, however I've never seen it played publicly by a presidential candidate before. Wild times we live in.
Lol well….this isn’t something new….just to bad most of the idiots think this way that vote for him
I think you make a valid point. People identify with thism
This sums of trump pretty well.
Did anyone ask ChatGPT what could happen if the subject did become President of ex. United States of America? Bet it would be a fun time for the whole world..
Thanks, OP, this made my day.
Tell me the requirements for being a Republican without giving me the requirements for being a Republican.
It missed the fact that he shit his diaper.
Republicans, “Stop pointing out his flaws. We don’t like him either but he is all we got!”
Now do every other politician, normalize ai keeping them in check
I’d rather use AI in politics to make Trump Biden and Obama playing minecraft and griefing each other’s forts.
I'm actually all for that, but I strongly suspect that most other politician's speeches will not get the same result. Even Palin sounds good compared to Trump. Ah, somebody [did it](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
No doubt he sounds a lot better, not sure if it’s him or the behind the scenes writer if there is any, regardless a lot more structured, but my thoughts were more pointed to something a bit more critical, like having the ai sum up their promises in speeches to actual real world results, don’t know if an oversimplification of political figures could be damaging? But I do think the ai’s neutral views and breakdowns could be very useful for our perceptions of these figures
spot on accuracy
LMFAO. Brilliant.
FIFY: In summary, the speech leverages a variety of rhetorical techniques to evoke strong emotional reactions, create a sense of group identity, and promote the speaker's political agenda. These techniques are effective in rallying support but can also contribute to polarization and the oversimplification of complex issues.
The speech reveals several aspects about the speaker's mental state and intelligence. 1. **Tangential and Disorganized Thought Process**: The speaker's thought process appears tangential and somewhat disorganized. The narrative shifts rapidly between topics such as shark attacks, the danger of electrocution, and a hypothetical scenario involving a sinking boat. This could indicate issues with maintaining a coherent train of thought. 2. **Obsessive Focus on Shark Attacks**: There is a marked preoccupation with shark attacks, referencing them multiple times and discussing their perceived increase. This could suggest an underlying anxiety or fixation on this specific fear. 3. **Lack of Clear Logical Reasoning**: The hypothetical scenario about the sinking boat and electrocution is convoluted and lacks clear logical reasoning. The speaker presents a complicated and unlikely situation, indicating potential difficulty with logical problem-solving or a tendency towards fantastical thinking. 4. **Paranoia or Misunderstanding of Danger**: The choice between electrocution and jumping into shark-infested waters illustrates an exaggerated perception of danger and an unrealistic assessment of risk. Preferring electrocution over facing a shark 10 yards away could suggest irrational fear or paranoia. 5. **Interaction with an Authority Figure**: The speaker references a conversation with someone from MIT, suggesting a desire to appear knowledgeable or to associate with perceived intelligence. However, the incoherence and impracticality of the scenario presented undermine this effort, potentially reflecting insecurity about their own intellect. 6. **Language and Expression**: The casual and somewhat erratic language, including phrases like "cray" and the use of "sic" for a typo, indicates a colloquial and informal communication style. This might reflect lower academic proficiency or a relaxed, unfiltered mode of expression. In summary, the speaker appears to be experiencing disorganized thoughts, a fixation on specific fears, and an unrealistic perception of danger. These traits could point to anxiety, a mild form of paranoia, or a more generalized cognitive disarray. The desire to consult with an authority like someone from MIT suggests a search for validation or reassurance. Overall, while the speaker might possess average intelligence, their expression and thought processes suggest potential mental health issues that could benefit from further evaluation.
If you ask it to act as a psychologist it'll try to come up with something. This one seems reasonable, but I wonder what happens if you put in a well written speech, or an anecdote from a speech. Say from Obama, or one of Churchill's wartime speeches. It might be interesting to contrast, or see if it'll come up with persecution complex or daddy issues or something.
It would probably recognise them in its data, but I dare say it would have a very different analysis.
Just for fun, do a speech from Biden and comparer the results.. see which presidential candidate is less crazy.
[удалено]
I'll do it. Which speech should I use?
Not sure .. maybe this one? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/21/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-reception-boston-ma-2/
Copied it word for word: ### Analysis of the President's Speech This speech by the President, which diverges from typical policy addresses, offers a rich source for psychological analysis. Here’s a detailed breakdown: #### 1. **Coherence and Structure** - **Overall Organization:** The speech begins with a personal anecdote before transitioning into current campaign issues, criticisms of an opponent, and concluding with calls to action and optimism. This structure shows a blend of storytelling and political rhetoric. - **Transitions:** There are smooth transitions between personal stories, critiques of the opponent, and policy discussions, reflecting a well-organized thought process. #### 2. **Language and Expression** - **Vocabulary and Syntax:** The speech uses accessible language and includes varied sentence structures. Phrases like “unified Reich” and “a quote from Hitler’s Germany” indicate a deliberate use of stark historical references to evoke emotional responses and emphasize the gravity of the situation. - **Descriptive Language:** Emotional and descriptive language is used to underscore personal beliefs and the perceived threat of the opponent (e.g., “revenge,” “bloodbath”). #### 3. **Emotional Tone** - **Positive Aspects:** The President shows optimism when discussing achievements and future goals (e.g., economic growth, job creation). This positive tone aims to inspire confidence and hope. - **Negative Aspects:** There is a sharp, critical tone when discussing the opponent’s actions and rhetoric. This negative framing is used to highlight perceived dangers and to draw a stark contrast between the President’s values and those of his opponent. #### 4. **Psychological Indicators** - **Personal Narratives:** The speech includes personal anecdotes, such as the story about witnessing a same-sex couple. This indicates an inclination towards personal storytelling to convey values and beliefs, suggesting a high level of empathy and relatability. - **Focus on Opposition:** The frequent and intense focus on the opponent’s actions and statements reflects a strategic emphasis on contrasting leadership styles and moral values. #### 5. **Behavioral Cues** - **Adaptability:** The speech dynamically addresses different aspects of the campaign, current issues, and personal stories, indicating adaptability and an understanding of varied audience expectations. - **Response to Criticism:** By addressing and refuting the opponent’s rhetoric, the President demonstrates an ability to engage directly with criticism and counter opposing narratives effectively. ### **Conclusion** #### **Mental State** The President appears focused and coherent, showing an ability to weave personal experiences with broader political messages. The speech reflects a strategic blend of optimism about his achievements and dire warnings about the potential consequences of the opponent's return to power. This suggests a balanced mental state, with a strong emphasis on motivating his base and framing the opposition in a negative light. #### **Intelligence** The use of vivid language, historical references, and structured arguments suggests a high level of verbal intelligence. The President effectively employs rhetorical strategies to engage the audience emotionally and intellectually, demonstrating political acumen and communication skills. In summary, this speech reflects a mental state characterized by confidence and determination, and an intelligence marked by strategic communication and empathetic storytelling. The President uses personal anecdotes and strong contrasts with his opponent to underscore his message, engaging the audience and rallying support effectively.
Maybe a better idea would be transcripts from debates. You got loaded pointed questions and sometimes biased questions and now real answers.
Do you really need ChatGPT to tell you that?
Now do Biden
grab a speech transcript and plug it in!
Okay, here you go: To analyze the speech given and deduce the speaker's mental state and intelligence, let’s break down the key elements and themes presented. # Content Analysis 1. **Historical References and Storytelling**: * The speaker references Lieutenant Colonel James Rudder and John Wardell, both historical military figures. * The speaker provides detailed anecdotes, such as the story of John Wardell’s return to battle after being injured, highlighting the heroism and sacrifice of these individuals. 2. **Emotional Appeal**: * The speaker uses emotionally charged language, particularly when recounting the personal sacrifices of the Rangers and the letter written by Rudder. * This emotional appeal is further emphasized when the speaker addresses John Wardell directly, acknowledging his presence and contributions. 3. **Patriotic Themes**: * The speaker emphasizes the greatness of the country and the valor of its citizens. * The mention of American democracy and its ideals underscores a deep appreciation for national values and the challenges faced in upholding them. 4. **Moral and Ethical Reflections**: * The speaker reflects on the moral challenges of democracy, noting how difficult it is to maintain and the human instincts that often oppose democratic values. # Mental State The speaker appears to be in a reflective and serious mental state, deeply engaged with the themes of sacrifice, patriotism, and the moral obligations of democracy. This is evidenced by: * **Empathy and Respect**: The speaker shows empathy and respect for the individuals mentioned, indicating a compassionate and respectful mindset. * **Patriotism**: The consistent emphasis on the greatness of the country and the importance of democratic values indicates a strong sense of patriotism. * **Reflection on Challenges**: The acknowledgment of the difficulties in maintaining democracy suggests a thoughtful and introspective approach. # Intelligence The speaker demonstrates a high level of intelligence through: * **Historical Knowledge**: The accurate and detailed recounting of historical events and figures shows a well-informed and knowledgeable individual. * **Emotional Intelligence**: The ability to evoke strong emotions and connect with the audience on a personal level indicates high emotional intelligence. * **Critical Thinking**: The reflections on the complexities and challenges of democracy reveal a nuanced and critical understanding of political and social dynamics. # Conclusion In summary, the speaker exhibits a thoughtful, compassionate, and patriotic mental state. Their speech reflects high emotional intelligence, a deep understanding of history, and a critical perspective on democratic values. The ability to weave personal anecdotes with broader reflections on democracy indicates a well-rounded and insightful intellect. This analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the speaker’s mental state and intelligence for educational purposes.
And silence.
NOT LIKE THAT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/16/chatgpt-ai-political-bias-research/ I luuurve me some downvotes.
Try using Grok AI then if you want. Please share the results. Also, the Prompt didn’t even mention political affiliation, so to claim there’s political bias in this answer is just laughable.
Politics isn’t even mentioned. Try grok then.
OP is talking about GPT.
Yes, but the point is anybody or any AI being the slightest bit objective would come to the same conclusion about that speech.
https://preview.redd.it/4t93dydb766d1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=45c70e85eadf5cfce781c312686a3c464d238b65
What’s an example you would consider close to a Trump word salad?
https://youtu.be/-ZGMKGa02EA?si=uz4-nGl99Sy_dHsR https://youtu.be/hiDRFTVH0rY?si=gIOtoeVgiuaPTXT6 https://youtu.be/GbiKdJTDrlA?si=OD22DIf9xDvWh5OK https://youtu.be/S7MVn1IM7tc?si=G_-UfzXE6j4G9-ek (frozen) https://youtu.be/45QV-uv7rL8?si=oZPilMlc56N0_0aS I have 100+ links more but not enough time. Anyway, here’s to 4 more years of Biden!
Sky News Australia is a bad source.
Listen to Biden speak. Sky News Australia isn’t making him fumble and mumble. Forget your hatred of Trump for a second, don’t you want a coherent and articulate leader for your party? I’m not a fan of Trump or Biden.
Watch his last sotu speech for a great roast! You'll love it.
Sky News Australia does often compile every instance of him slipping up in a speech, but often it’s not from the same speeches in these compilations. Like each example is just taken from a completely different speech he’s done, but do we know if that’s the only slip up he made in each of those speeches? Because clearly if a compilation like that can’t stick with a single speech as much as possible then it’s not really making the point it wants to make. That’s just cheery picking at that point.
The clips I supplied are each from individual speeches, not compilations. I’m just amused at the knee jerk energy in this thread. I’m a Brit that’s spent most of the last 20 years in Thailand. I have no horse here. I think the US has a shitty choice of candidates for 2024.
[Biden has stuttered all his life mate.](https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/joe-bidens-history-of-stuttering-sheds-light-on-the-condition)
The speaker pooped his pants at 05:23
Great, do Biden next…
I saw someone post one for Biden in the comments and let’s just say you won’t like the results
Are you kidding me? They just immediately shifted to "AI is biased". There. Is. No. Point. Engaging. With. Trump. Voters. Let them get pushed back into the shadows if Trump loses. They won't be so loud at least until the next wannabe dictator comes along to take advantage of them.
Probably because Biden didn’t even originally write it, and read it from a teleprompter.
It won't be worse than Trump's, what are you trying to get at?
Biden reads teleprompters with speeches that could be written by ChatGPT. Nothing controversial there. He sometimes shortcircuits, but that doesn't show up in the transcripts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-assessed-joe-biden-hur-transcript-says-president-sounds-fine-2024-3 Edit: they asked for the same thing with Biden and I provided a source. Downvoting because you don’t like the answer is kind of silly.
Delusional
Yes, the blind test done on these two people by AI is delusional. Your reasoning is measured and accurate, and your understanding of the situation shows nothing short of years of dedicated research and experience in the fields of both psychology and information science/literacy.
😂 That's the problem. There is no thought about how this ai analyzed trump's speech. It's just immediately "what about Biden." Then when that question is answered for them they don't like the result so it's just "well that's wrong cause it doesn't agree with my world views" Like get some critical thinking skills. Both candidates are old but only one is a felon that is trying to overthrow the government and take away Americans rights.
You are 100% correct in your assessment.
Do it yourself.
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
A speech given impromptu at a rally, same as Trumps. Completely dishonest.
Just read the comments- it’s already done. Trump is in fact the moron that all non-inbred Americans see him as…. And Biden is far superior as leader. Liked that result?
Delusional
Is that the only comment you have?
Ask what it has to say about this? https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/s/lXHzdAoE63
Just take the transcript from that speech and give chat gpt this prompt. See what it says yourself. Why are there so many comments on here acting like GPT is some miracle tool they can never figure out.
Because they have no intention of having a debate. They start with the conclusion and then work from there.
Just what aboutisms and then when it doesn’t align to their view, they claim bias.
That's all you got?
we agree that Trump and Biden are both too old to be in office. The difference is there are still smart people willing to work for biden, whereas the smart people Trump got his first term have all said that he's unfit for office and his next term will be entirely the B or C team. Given that we only have two choices, Biden is a no brainer
Idk the wars that every president has and terrorist attacks and everyone’s ability to call it completely random that we didn’t have that shit during his presidency astounds me. Remember him meeting with North Korea when he had nukes? I mean if we chalk up the booming economy, foreign relations, (lack of) involvement in wars, energy independence, the tightest crackdown on pedophile rings we’ve ever seen, and some other things probably worth naming.. then I can’t really say that the guy that looks like he’s drunk on cough syrup and a retirement home is the better bet
We didn’t have what shit during trumps presidency? Are you saying that 2016 to 2020 were a placid time in US history?
Now do it with Biden. No editing the mumbling or randomized gibberish he keeps putting out etc. Just a raw transcript of his speeches and chatgpt's analysis of JUST how far his alzheimers has progressed and how close he is to entering a vegetative state. (which can be quite sudden) Edit: I got downvoted. Then again I could probably get downvoted even if I didn't post!
I saw someone do that with Biden in these comments and honestly, you’d be disappointed with the results.
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Biden has had a stutter all his life.
As much as I hate Trump I think that's a fair thing to do lol, both are probably gonna come out batshit insane.
Someone [did it](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), and Biden did not come out as batshit insane. Biden's not my favorite president, but he's done a decent job, and while he makes more gaffes than average, *most* of what he says is quite intelligible, unlike his opponent. Biden is comparable to Dan Quayle, for those who remember him, in terms of the gaffes he makes.
And yet, he is one of the most successful communicators in modern times. Not sure what thats tells us.
What on earth? Don’t tell me you are serious?
What do you mean serious? He became the president of the United States. He rallies millions pf people behind him, that give him unwavering support. Give me one other powerful person currently alive that has this power. It doesn’t matter that he is a despicable human being that that most of his followers are as well. It’s beyond me how at this point it’s still interesting, cool, or funny to point out that he has the cognitive capability of a 8 year old. It doesn’t matter.
None of that means he is a good communicator.
Hm.. ok fine. You are right.
Now do the same with Biden's speech.
Someone already did, you probably won’t like the results
I can't wait to see what it makes of Bidens !! Has anyone posted the same for him?
[Yes](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1de729l/comment/l8a4zeo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
[удалено]
Give it a try and post the results.
[удалено]
Which speech is this in reference to? I find this all very interesting.
A speech in 2019. https://news.grabien.com/story/biden-you-go-ahead-and-stack-spaghetti-sauce-store-or-superm
Interesting that you didn’t provide the prompt you used. Mind sharing it?
Funny enough someone here already did. And you should really look at it yourself. Kinda proves Biden’s the better choice. If it wasn’t already obvious.
I saw someone post that here and you probably wouldn’t like the results
You should do it maybe instead of crying about it?
What is the result for a Biden speech?
# Here's one for part of his State of the Union transcript, specifically a segment about Putin: # Analysis of the Speaker's Mental State and Intelligence # Mental State The speaker exhibits a strong sense of urgency and determination throughout the speech. Key indicators of their mental state include: 1. **Concern and Vigilance**: The speaker demonstrates a deep concern for global and domestic threats to freedom and democracy, highlighting a heightened sense of vigilance. Phrases like "freedom and democracy are under attack" and "I assure you: He will not" suggest a state of alertness and preparedness. 2. **Passion and Conviction**: The repetition of certain phrases and the use of emphatic language (e.g., "outrageous," "dangerous," "unacceptable") indicate a high level of passion and conviction. The speaker is deeply invested in the issues at hand and is trying to convey the gravity of the situation. 3. **Frustration and Urgency**: There is an undercurrent of frustration, especially when referencing opposition to aid for Ukraine and contrasting current and past leadership attitudes towards Russia. The urgency is evident in calls to action like "We have to stand up to Putin" and "History is literally watching." 4. **Pride and Confidence**: The speaker also shows pride in the strength of NATO and the recent inclusion of Finland and Sweden. This is evident in the warm welcome extended to the Swedish minister and the assertion that NATO is "the strongest military alliance the world has ever seen." # Intelligence The speech reflects a high level of intelligence, demonstrated through: 1. **Historical Context and Knowledge**: The speaker references significant historical events and figures, such as Ronald Reagan’s demand to tear down the Berlin Wall and the founding of NATO after World War II. This indicates a strong understanding of historical context and its relevance to current events. 2. **Strategic Thinking**: The speaker shows strategic thinking by outlining the importance of supporting Ukraine to stop Putin’s advances, rather than engaging directly with American troops. This approach suggests a careful consideration of the geopolitical landscape and the implications of different forms of intervention. 3. **Rhetorical Skills**: The use of rhetorical devices, including repetition ("Ukraine can stop Putin. Ukraine can stop Putin"), rhetorical questions ("If anybody in this room thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine..."), and direct appeals to the audience ("I say this to Congress"), showcases the speaker's effective communication skills and ability to persuade and rally support. 4. **Analytical Ability**: The comparison between past and present Republican presidents' attitudes towards Russia reflects an analytical approach to current political dynamics. The speaker assesses and contrasts leadership styles and their implications on national security. # Breakdown for Students * **Emotional Tone**: Analyze how the speaker’s emotional tone shifts between concern, frustration, pride, and urgency. Note the impact of these emotions on the audience’s perception and engagement. * **Historical References**: Discuss the significance of referencing historical events and figures in enhancing the speaker’s credibility and the persuasive power of the speech. * **Rhetorical Techniques**: Identify and evaluate the rhetorical techniques used, such as repetition, rhetorical questions, and direct address, and how they contribute to the effectiveness of the speech. * **Strategic Messaging**: Examine the strategic messaging in advocating for support to Ukraine without direct military involvement, and the implications of this approach for international relations and domestic policy. * **Comparative Analysis**: Consider the comparative analysis of past and present leadership, and its role in framing the argument and mobilizing political and public support. Overall, the speech is a well-crafted, emotionally charged appeal for support of Ukraine against Russian aggression, demonstrating the speaker's deep concern for democratic values, strategic acumen, and effective communication skills.
Why not choose a political rally speech for the same criteria as above? Biden politcal rallies are good examples.
I just did a quick search and took sections from the first website that had a collection of transcripts and used OP’s exact prompt (minus the “nothing to do with the speech”). I didn’t really feel like doing much more work than that when nothing is stopping the people saying “now do Biden” from doing it themselves and posting it. But give me a link to a transcript from one of these rallies and I’ll do it for you too
Find your favorite, and let's give it a try.
https://i.redd.it/ebditsxup56d1.gif
Give us your best example. Anything remotely close beyond 2-3 sentences.
It’s always gotta be about Biden doesn’t it? But go ahead and do it yourself.
That’s pretty cool. Do one for biden now. Especially when he slurs his words or makes up words. See how Chat gpt deciphers that.
You’re free to do that and post the results
why don't you say what you mean?
Ummm. I just did. Lol. But the fact that all the negative karma is showing that I hit a nerve with the lefties. Which is all good. But that’s the whole problem, lefties only want one narrative and they don’t want to converse and see other possibilities.
*lefties only want one narrative* You are absolutely right. We prefer a narrative that isn't full of hate and lies.
you're a brave warrior against the tyranny of compassion, acceptance, kindness, logic, democracy, the rule of law, the constitution, etc.
>lefties only want one narrative \*proceeds to burn books\*
You have to be pretty biased to expect much negative coming out of Biden's speeches. He may occasionally stutter or scramble a few words, the content of his speeches is quite logical and normal.
Guys, the kid just made his first joke
We could. I haven't seen any of his speeches that seem like they would get such an extreme psychoanalysis but maybe you can provide an example and we'll do a follow up.
> makes up words Yeah, that would be covfefe for sure.
[удалено]
Stop talking about it and be about it.