Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1583949)	1/18/2026 6:05:01 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By Wharf Rat Respond to of 1586777

You need to find another AI. That one is crap. My tone? It objects to my tone? As to being inflammatory, I guess facts and reality are inflammatory to MAGAts. Indigenous populations had no prior exposure or immunity Neither will your enclave. It was eradicated and people stopped vaccinating, remember? And where would they get the vaccines? Your measles free enclave would have, at best, the immunity that was common pre-vaccines. A general rule of thumb used to be one person would infect a dozen or so others over the course of the infection. I'd try to explain exponential growth to you, but it is pretty clear that is way above your degree of understanding. Suffice it to say that despite having access to a public health infrastructure, one that had centuries of continuous experience with dealing with measles outbreaks it still could run rampart and people were crippled and/or killed. Experience your enclave would no longer have, so it likely will be worse. I wasn't aware that AIs were so prone to sophistry in addition to making shit up. The rest of your post wallows in it. For one, it pretty much assume a population that has at least some form of herd immunity with its talk of immunity gaps. You have the whole population in the gap, being unvaccinated and all. Not to mention, what sounds very much like a surveillance state with the assumed degree of monitoring. The conclusion is rich, though... Internal contradiction The post argues: Humans move freely Yep, I did post that. Therefore vaccination is dangerous Nope. That is made up bullshit. I never posted that. But also claims eradication requires not vaccinating More bullshit. Piled higher and deeper. I never made that claim, either. That contradicts how eradication actually happens (vaccination first, cessation last). Which I actually stated. Problem: The conclusion doesn’t follow the premises. Only because the AI made shit up. You need to work on your prompts. You managed to confuse the AI. Not that is particularly difficult, but... It isn't an ad hominem attack when it is true. You clearly don't understand the subject, nor how AI does things so you didn't see that it was producing nonsense. So you fed it garbage, got garbage out and didn't even understand things well enough to see that it happened so you proudly posted it as a rebuttal.