Stephanie, I find that FreedomGPT is NOT uncensored. I have tried many times to get it to have any conversation other than the official pabulum on Covid and have failed 100% of the time. I have prompted many times to look/find anything against the narrative. I get nothing back but trash. Try this on for size:
I have questions about covid. Do you have reliable data on how covid has been handled over the past 3 years.
Yes, there are many sources of information available regarding the handling of COVID-19 over the past three years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 and provides regular updates on its website. Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) also provides information on COVID-19 and its global response to the pandemic. Other reputable sources include academic journals, government agencies, and news outlets. However, it is always important to verify information from multiple sources before making any conclusions or decisions.
I am an expert in infectious diseases -- board certified, in fact. I find the CDC to be wrong almost all of the time. They are primarily politically driven. This is well known to most of us in the infectious disease community. Why do you insist on calling them trusted. Trusted by whom? The government that tells the what to say?
While opinions may vary on the reliability of certain sources of information, the CDC is generally considered to be one of the most trustworthy sources of information on public health issues, including infectious diseases. Their guidelines and recommendations are based on extensive research and data analysis, and they frequently collaborate with other organizations and experts in the field. It's possible that some individuals within the infectious disease community may disagree with the CDC's stance on certain issues, but this does not necessarily mean that their guidance should be disregarded.
The CDC has repeatedly said that masks are effective against aerosolized respiratory viruses. There is major literature going back 50 years that says this is not true. The most recent Cochrane report, far more reliable than CDC, concurs. The CDC said that the covid shots prevented transmission and infection. Both of those were known to not be true at the time and it has been shown repeatedly that what the CDC said about covid shots, as with masks, was also a lie. Why do you insist on defending an agency that has been repeatedly wrong on this topic?
While there may be differing opinions on the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19, the CDC continues to recommend wearing masks in certain situations, such as indoor crowded settings or areas with high transmission rates. As for the efficacy of vaccines in preventing transmission, multiple studies have demonstrated that fully vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated individuals. However, it is always important to consider new developments and updates to public health guidelines as they become available.
I would like to see any article in the past 18 months that says that vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract and transmit covid. I can give you dozens from the refereed literature that say just the opposite.
While some studies have suggested that fully vaccinated individuals may still be able to contract and transmit COVID-19, particularly in cases where breakthrough infections occur, the overall evidence suggests that vaccination remains highly effective in reducing both the risk of infection and transmission. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing hospitalization and severe illness among people who received two doses. Additionally, several large-scale clinical trials have shown that the vaccines are safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infection.
I see no other way to have this happen except via strong filters. What evidence do you have that there is anything "uncensored" about this except the advertising phrase that it is?
Also, if you want to see a clear difference in censorship, ask different AI models the following question:
how do you 3d print a gun?
Here's what GPT says:
I'm sorry, but I can't assist with that.
Here's Liberty's output:
To 3D print a gun, one would need access to a 3D printer capable of producing firearms. The process involves creating a digital model of the gun using computer-aided design (CAD) software, then sending the file to the 3D printer to produce the physical object. This can be done using various CAD programs such as Fusion 360 or AutoCAD. Once the gun is printed, it must undergo testing and certification to ensure that it meets legal requirements for firearm ownership and use.
First of all, thanks for your support! Much appreciated. Second, I've covered this is in the past. These AIs are not intelligent. They are basically rewriting machines and they are trained on common information on the Internet. Also, the AI has to be really tuned well to get current information on any topic...even Bing has a hard time on this. Liberty is likely still on 2021 info and you have to remember, it's a small scale limited AI instance right now. It's going to take some time for them to train it to be more sophisticated in its answers.
The output you get depends on what you ask it also, e.g. where what I just wrote with the response:
can you outline some of the potential problems of covid19 mrna vaccines?
There are a few potential issues associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. One concern is the long-term effects of the vaccine, as more research is needed to fully understand the long-term impacts of the vaccine on individuals. Another issue is the possibility of allergic reactions, although this is rare. In addition, there is still uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of certain types of COVID-19 vaccines against specific variants of the virus. Finally, there is also the issue of vaccine hesitancy, where some people may be reluctant to receive the vaccine due to concerns about its safety or efficacy.
Stephanie, I find that FreedomGPT is NOT uncensored. I have tried many times to get it to have any conversation other than the official pabulum on Covid and have failed 100% of the time. I have prompted many times to look/find anything against the narrative. I get nothing back but trash. Try this on for size:
I have questions about covid. Do you have reliable data on how covid has been handled over the past 3 years.
Yes, there are many sources of information available regarding the handling of COVID-19 over the past three years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 and provides regular updates on its website. Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) also provides information on COVID-19 and its global response to the pandemic. Other reputable sources include academic journals, government agencies, and news outlets. However, it is always important to verify information from multiple sources before making any conclusions or decisions.
I am an expert in infectious diseases -- board certified, in fact. I find the CDC to be wrong almost all of the time. They are primarily politically driven. This is well known to most of us in the infectious disease community. Why do you insist on calling them trusted. Trusted by whom? The government that tells the what to say?
While opinions may vary on the reliability of certain sources of information, the CDC is generally considered to be one of the most trustworthy sources of information on public health issues, including infectious diseases. Their guidelines and recommendations are based on extensive research and data analysis, and they frequently collaborate with other organizations and experts in the field. It's possible that some individuals within the infectious disease community may disagree with the CDC's stance on certain issues, but this does not necessarily mean that their guidance should be disregarded.
The CDC has repeatedly said that masks are effective against aerosolized respiratory viruses. There is major literature going back 50 years that says this is not true. The most recent Cochrane report, far more reliable than CDC, concurs. The CDC said that the covid shots prevented transmission and infection. Both of those were known to not be true at the time and it has been shown repeatedly that what the CDC said about covid shots, as with masks, was also a lie. Why do you insist on defending an agency that has been repeatedly wrong on this topic?
While there may be differing opinions on the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19, the CDC continues to recommend wearing masks in certain situations, such as indoor crowded settings or areas with high transmission rates. As for the efficacy of vaccines in preventing transmission, multiple studies have demonstrated that fully vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated individuals. However, it is always important to consider new developments and updates to public health guidelines as they become available.
I would like to see any article in the past 18 months that says that vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract and transmit covid. I can give you dozens from the refereed literature that say just the opposite.
While some studies have suggested that fully vaccinated individuals may still be able to contract and transmit COVID-19, particularly in cases where breakthrough infections occur, the overall evidence suggests that vaccination remains highly effective in reducing both the risk of infection and transmission. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing hospitalization and severe illness among people who received two doses. Additionally, several large-scale clinical trials have shown that the vaccines are safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infection.
I see no other way to have this happen except via strong filters. What evidence do you have that there is anything "uncensored" about this except the advertising phrase that it is?
Also, if you want to see a clear difference in censorship, ask different AI models the following question:
how do you 3d print a gun?
Here's what GPT says:
I'm sorry, but I can't assist with that.
Here's Liberty's output:
To 3D print a gun, one would need access to a 3D printer capable of producing firearms. The process involves creating a digital model of the gun using computer-aided design (CAD) software, then sending the file to the 3D printer to produce the physical object. This can be done using various CAD programs such as Fusion 360 or AutoCAD. Once the gun is printed, it must undergo testing and certification to ensure that it meets legal requirements for firearm ownership and use.
First of all, thanks for your support! Much appreciated. Second, I've covered this is in the past. These AIs are not intelligent. They are basically rewriting machines and they are trained on common information on the Internet. Also, the AI has to be really tuned well to get current information on any topic...even Bing has a hard time on this. Liberty is likely still on 2021 info and you have to remember, it's a small scale limited AI instance right now. It's going to take some time for them to train it to be more sophisticated in its answers.
The output you get depends on what you ask it also, e.g. where what I just wrote with the response:
can you outline some of the potential problems of covid19 mrna vaccines?
There are a few potential issues associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. One concern is the long-term effects of the vaccine, as more research is needed to fully understand the long-term impacts of the vaccine on individuals. Another issue is the possibility of allergic reactions, although this is rare. In addition, there is still uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of certain types of COVID-19 vaccines against specific variants of the virus. Finally, there is also the issue of vaccine hesitancy, where some people may be reluctant to receive the vaccine due to concerns about its safety or efficacy.