ReadMoreBooks

If the existence is a terroristic act how do you call farmers who breed these creatures on purpose?

Capitalists.

Our mass media can incite fear of chickens, pigs, and cattle. Then their existence itself can be defined as a terrorist act. We'll redefine vegan to mean only those that eat terrorists to save the other animals. Actual vegans can call themselves "vegetablers". Nothing changes and everyone feels good because if they don't feel good then they're not human.

Objective: To evaluate the cognitive abilities of the leading large language models and identify their susceptibility to cognitive impairment, using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and additional tests.

Results: ChatGPT 4o achieved the highest score on the MoCA test (26/30), followed by ChatGPT 4 and Claude (25/30), with Gemini 1.0 scoring lowest (16/30). All large language models showed poor performance in visuospatial/executive tasks. Gemini models failed at the delayed recall task. Only ChatGPT 4o succeeded in the incongruent stage of the Stroop test.

Conclusions: With the exception of ChatGPT 4o, almost all large language models subjected to the MoCA test showed signs of mild cognitive impairment. Moreover, as in humans, age is a key determinant of cognitive decline: “older” chatbots, like older patients, tend to perform worse on the MoCA test. These findings challenge the assumption that artificial intelligence will soon replace human doctors, as the cognitive impairment evident in leading chatbots may affect their reliability in medical diagnostics and undermine patients’ confidence.

OK. I'll assign more benefit of the doubt.

To be moral and ethical in their voting choice, to serve systemic design intent, to serve the practicalities of implementation, an individual need not care about others' votes.

So, it's incorrect to set as a prerequisite a belief in success of a 5% goal to vote for it. Presenting as you did exemplifies the propaganda-fed ego of the neoliberal. The meaning in voting is not to make you feel good about yourself for choosing the bandwagon that wins. All should vote for whom best represents them with reckless disregard for the short-term outcome.

The eventual counterargument to what I'm saying is rooted in utilitarianism: Democracy produces at best mediocre outcomes. The systemic design answer was the electoral college.

I'm reminded of children in grade school who "I know what that means, I'm just not going to explain it to you."

Yes. In this endeavor you're beginning to understand the means I've chosen for the majority.

With well-reasoned and nuanced principles supported by vast experience.

That's by far the best question I've been asked in this thread. However, satisfying your curiosity would require me to break a well-reasoned commitment I've already made to others.

I need not accommodate everyone.

Learn your fallacies.

The audience I wish to reach doesn't need their hand held as a child.

You failed to be adequate in either reading comprehension or presentation.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Try something different next time.