The Monster Inside ChatGPT

Post by gchamonlive » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 12:44 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #149

gchamonlive wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said it's important for companies, but for me I'm more interest in how it functions for me personally, for the average consumer.

It sounds like you're trying to respond to another comment thread.

More like you are unable to pose your questions clearly. The "end goal" you are assuming to be essential, isn't. It's essential for those profiting from them. For the average consumer the only concern is how it behaves and what they can do with it. That is, the teleology is post hoc, it comes after the fact, not before, which means it isn't essential.

Post by verall » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 10:12 PM UTC

K0balt wrote: post #99

verall wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A great example is artificial sweeteners in non-diet beverages. Do you have an example? Every drink I've seen with artificial sweeteners is because their customers (myself included) want the drinks to have less calories. Sugary drinks is a much clearer understood health risk than aspartame or sucralose.

I don’t know what is happening in the rest of the world, but here in the Dominican Republic (where a major export is sugar, ironically) almost all soft drinks are laced with sucralose. This includes the not-labeled-as-reduced-calorie offerings from Coca Cola, PepsiCo, and nestle. The Coca Cola labeling specifically appears intentionally deceptive. It is labeled “Coca Cola Sabor Original” with a tiny note near the flu…

That's really interesting! I have not seen such "less-sugar" drinks here in the US.

I personally find that I can substitute 1/3-1/2 the sugar in various mixed drinks with sucralose without nearly the change in flavor as if I substituted all of the sugar. I'm an occasional drinker of zero sugar sodas though so maybe I am more accustomed to it.

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT

Re: The Monster Inside ChatGPT