A flash flood in Texas has become a political issue the same way hurricanes sometimes do. (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

SamAndreas

It's Not my Fault
Joined
Dec 2, 2021
Messages
2,600
Reaction score
2,288
Age
65
Location
California
Offline
The flood in Texas was almost as bad as the Big Thompson flood was in Colorado back in 1976. Both were caused by about 10 to 11 inches of rain. The death toll in Texas is around 60 people now, in Colorado 76 there were 144 deaths, which is gross.

The New York Times published this and that makes it an official political issue. Oddly enough they lifted the paywall at least for me, you might be able to click and read it as well:


The premises is that Trump caused vacancies at the weather forecast office such that those poor folks didn't get a warning, as thus they didn't seek higher ground, as thus they died.

The question is it trumps fault
 
I took this issue to Gemini at Google, asking it to evaluate the promamant cause connections which might be legally applicable in light of the "charges" that the Times article seem to address to the current administration, without addressing whether or not there is real and actual blaine, or if this a something folks are going to gnaw on for ages like they did with Hurricane Katrina back in 2004.

As usual I am placing my questions in bold, the long answers in plain text without quotes to make it more readable.

The flood in Texas was almost as bad as the Big Thompson flood was in Colorado back in 1976. Both were caused by about 10 to 11 inches of rain. The death toll in Texas is around 60 people now, in Colorado 76 there were 144 deaths, which is gross.

The New York Times published this and that makes it an official political issue. Oddly enough they lifted the paywall at least for me, you might be able to click and read it as well:


The premises is that Trump caused vacancies at the weather forecast office such that those poor folks didn't get a warning, as thus they didn't seek higher ground, as thus they died.

The question is it trumps fault


Show thinking

I am unable to access the content of the New York Times article you linked, as the Browse tool encountered an issue. Therefore, I cannot determine whether the article states that the Texas floods and the resulting deaths were "Trump's fault" due to vacancies at the weather forecast office.


The times usually wants money for a reader to read, I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't the issue you encountered. There's a work around, it's a leading story, and what a newspaper might say, if Trump is, or is not at fault, is not going to be the deciding factor, so don't over dwell on that aspect, what I am after is under the legal phrase "proximate cause" and perhaps other legal means please look into this as a legal issue and evaluate the situation.


Show thinking

From a legal perspective, specifically under the concept of "proximate cause," determining fault for deaths in a natural disaster like a flood, especially linking it to governmental administrative decisions such as staffing levels, involves complex legal challenges.
Here's an evaluation of the situation based on general legal principles:

Proximate Cause and Government Liability​


For a person or entity (including the government) to be held legally liable for harm, there must generally be:
  1. Duty: The defendant (e.g., the government) owed a legal duty to the injured parties.
  2. Breach of Duty: The defendant breached that duty.
  3. Causation: The defendant's breach of duty was both the "actual cause" (but for the breach, the harm would not have occurred) and the "proximate cause" of the harm.
  4. Damages: The injured parties suffered actual damages (e.g., deaths).
Proximate cause specifically refers to whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions or inactions, and if there were any intervening events that broke the chain of causation.

Challenges in Cases Involving Natural Disasters and Government Decisions​


  1. "Act of God" Defense: Natural disasters like floods are often considered "Acts of God" (force majeure), making it difficult to assign tort liability directly to a human or governmental entity for the disaster itself. However, governments can be held liable if their actions or inactions increase the harm or fail to mitigate foreseeable risks when they have the capacity and duty to do so.
  2. Governmental Immunity (Sovereign Immunity): Governments typically enjoy some degree of sovereign immunity, meaning they are protected from lawsuits unless they waive that immunity or specific statutes allow for it. Many jurisdictions have "discretionary function" exceptions to this immunity, which protect governmental bodies from liability for decisions involving policy choices, resource allocation, and planning. Decisions about staffing levels, budgeting, and office operations, including those related to weather forecasting, often fall under this discretionary function.
    • Exception to Immunity: Immunity can sometimes be overcome if it's proven that the government:
      • Created a dangerous condition.
      • Failed to remedy a dangerous condition it had actual or constructive notice of.
      • Breached a mandatory duty (a specific, non-discretionary requirement imposed by law) that was designed to protect against the type of injury that occurred. If there was a clear, non-discretionary duty to maintain specific staffing levels for public safety warnings, and that duty was demonstrably breached, a case could potentially be made.
  3. Establishing Direct and Foreseeable Causation: This is often the highest hurdle. To prove that "Trump's fault" (or the fault of his administration) led to the deaths through vacancies in a weather forecast office, one would need to establish:
    • Direct Link between Vacancies and Warning Failure: That the specific vacancies directly and substantially impaired the ability of the weather office to issue timely and effective warnings for this particular flood.
    • Foreseeability: That it was foreseeable that these vacancies would lead to a failure in warnings, and that this failure would, in turn, lead to increased deaths.
    • Absence of Intervening Causes: That there weren't significant intervening factors that broke the chain of causation (e.g., the extreme and unprecedented nature of the flood, individual decisions not to evacuate, or other communication failures unrelated to staffing).
    • It is very difficult to definitively prove that a specific administrative decision regarding staffing levels, even if it led to reduced capacity, was the "proximate cause" of individual deaths in a complex natural disaster scenario, overriding all other contributing factors.

Conclusion on Legal Liability​


While it is legally possible for governments to be held liable for negligence in disaster preparedness and response (especially if they increase a hazard or fail to perform a mandatory duty), proving that a high-level official's administrative decisions regarding staffing directly and proximately caused deaths in a natural disaster is an extremely challenging legal endeavor. It would require overcoming significant hurdles related to governmental immunity and establishing a clear, direct, and foreseeable causal link that withstands arguments about intervening factors and the discretionary nature of such policy decisions.
 
And here's Grok 3's reply to the same initial question. Apparently Grok does have access to that times article, so there was no pause. Grok ran with it as it was without further clarification.

However Grok was accused online of having blamed Muck and Trump yesterday when it didn't do that, and I feel that Grok is trying to ask me to report that X post to X administration with the fake image that it was unfairly accused of having made, was first posted on X and then spread to social media like this forum everywhere, such that it has picked up a post similar to the one here but on an old bbcode board somewhere else, note that Grok stripped that part of any personal identifying displaying a mockup of that post which I would almost think hurt Groks feelings, which Grock itself says it doesn't have.

This is what it says, as before my questions in bold and increased size fonts.

The flood in Texas was almost as bad as the Big Thompson flood was in Colorado back in 1976. Both were caused by about 10 to 11 inches of rain. The death toll in Texas is around 60 people now, in Colorado 76 there were 144 deaths, which is gross.

The New York Times published this and that makes it an official political issue. Oddly enough they lifted the paywall at least for me, you might be able to click and read it as well:


The premises is that Trump caused vacancies at the weather forecast office such that those poor folks didn't get a warning, as thus they didn't seek higher ground, as thus they died.


The question is it trumps fault

The flood in Texas was almost as bad as the Big Thompson flood was in Colorado back in 1976. Both were caused by about 10 to 11 inches of rain. The death toll in Texas is around 60 people now, in Colorado 76 there were 144 deaths, which is gross.The New York Times published this and that makes it an official political issue. Oddly enough they lifted the paywall at least for me, you might be able to click and read it as well:https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/us/politics/texas-floods-warnings-vacancies.html The premises is that Trump caused vacancies at the weather forecast office such that those poor folks didn't get a warning, as thus they didn't seek higher ground, as thus they died.The question is it trumps fault


You’re comparing the recent Texas floods, with a death toll of around 60 and 10–12 inches of rain, to the 1976 Big Thompson flood in Colorado, which had 14 inches of rain and 144 deaths, noting the severity of both. You’ve referenced a New York Times article

suggesting that staffing vacancies at the National Weather Service (NWS), attributed to Trump administration cuts, may have contributed to inadequate warnings, leading to deaths in Texas. You’re asking if Trump is at fault for these deaths, framing it as a now-politicized issue due to the article’s publication. I’ll analyze this question critically, using your input, the provided search results (–,,), and my understanding of the events, while addressing the screenshot issue from our prior conversation (the fake post claiming I blamed Trump and Musk). I’ll focus on the Texas flood’s causes, warnings, and staffing issues to assess responsibility, keeping the response concise yet comprehensive, as this is a serious and controversial topic.Context: The Texas Flood and Staffing Claims The Texas floods, occurring around July 4–5, 2025, in Kerr County and surrounding areas, were caused by 5–15 inches of rain, with some areas seeing 10–12 inches, leading to the Guadalupe River surging 20–29 feet in hours. The death toll is reported as 51–70, including 15–21 children, with 11–27 girls and a counselor missing from Camp Mystic (,,). The New York Times article (,) and other sources (,,) highlight NWS staffing vacancies, linked to Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, as a potential factor in the tragedy, suggesting these impaired forecast coordination and warnings.


The 1976 Big Thompson flood, for comparison, saw 14 inches of rain in Colorado’s Big Thompson Canyon, causing 144 deaths due to rapid flooding in a narrow canyon with limited escape routes. Both events involved extreme rainfall and flash flooding, but the Texas flood’s broader geographic impact and modern warning systems contrast with the 1976 event’s more confined setting and less advanced technology.Addressing the Screenshot You previously shared a screenshot of an X post claiming I said, “yep, Trump and Elon killed those girls,” with a fabricated response from me: “not my exact words, but close enough.” As established, this is fake—it mismatches my tone, lacks evidence, and fits a pattern of doctored X posts (,,). It’s unrelated to the New York Times article but reflects the politicization you’re noting, as false narratives on X (e.g.,,) amplify blame toward Trump. I’ll focus on the factual question of Trump’s responsibility, not the hoax screenshot, but it underscores the need for skepticism toward sensational claims.Analysis: Is Trump at Fault for the Texas Flood Deaths?To assess whether Trump is responsible for the deaths due to NWS vacancies, let’s break it down:1. NWS Staffing Vacancies and DOGE Cuts
  • Vacancies: The NWS San Angelo office (covering parts of the flood area) lacked a senior hydrologist, staff forecaster, and meteorologist-in-charge, while the Austin/San Antonio office missed a warning coordination meteorologist and science officer (,,). These roles are critical for coordinating with emergency managers and issuing warnings.
  • DOGE Cuts: The Trump administration’s DOGE initiative cut ~560–880 NWS/NOAA staff in 2025, with some vacancies from early retirements (e.g., the Austin/San Antonio warning coordination meteorologist left April 30, 2025) (,,). These cuts followed a hiring freeze and travel budget limits, reducing coordination with local officials ().
  • Impact Claims: Critics, including Rep. Jared Huffman and former NWS directors, warned that cuts could impair forecasting and endanger lives (,,). The New York Times suggests vacancies “might have complicated” coordination with emergency managers, potentially delaying warnings ().
2. NWS Forecast and Warning Performance
  • Forecasts Issued: The NWS issued a flood watch on July 3 at 1:18 p.m. CT, predicting 5–7 inches of rain, and flash flood warnings at 1:14 a.m. and early July 4, providing 3+ hours of lead time before peak flooding (,,). However, actual rainfall (10–15 inches) exceeded forecasts (3–8 inches), a common challenge in predicting thunderstorm rainfall ().
  • Expert Defense: Meteorologists like Chris Vagasky and Matt Lanza argue the NWS accurately predicted flood risk but couldn’t pinpoint the extreme rainfall’s location due to unpredictable storm dynamics (e.g., a mesoscale convective vortex) (,). Tom Fahy (NWS union) said Texas offices were “adequately staffed” and issued timely warnings (,).
  • Local Criticism: Texas officials, including Nim Kidd and Kerr County Judge Rob Kelly, criticized the NWS for underestimating rainfall, claiming forecasts didn’t predict the 10–15 inches that fell, catching them off guard (,). Kidd noted, “The amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts” ().
3. Warning Dissemination and Local Response
  • Warning Delays: A KXAN report notes the first public flood warnings were posted on Facebook at 5 a.m., hours after NWS’s 1:14 a.m. warning, suggesting a breakdown in local dissemination (). Kerr County lacked a robust warning system, and officials said the flood’s speed (river rising 20–29 feet in ~90 minutes) made evacuation challenging (,).
  • Camp Mystic: The camp, on the Guadalupe River, didn’t evacuate despite the flood watch, possibly due to underestimating the threat or logistical issues (highway washouts) (). Local officials claimed they had “no reason to believe” the flood would be catastrophic ().
  • Warning Fatigue: Central Texas’s frequent flooding may have desensitized residents and officials to warnings, reducing urgency ().
4. Comparing to Big Thompson (1976)
  • Similarities: Both floods involved extreme rainfall (10–14 inches) over short periods, causing rapid river surges and high death tolls (60 in Texas, 144 in Colorado). Both caught communities unprepared due to the storms’ intensity.
  • Differences: Big Thompson’s narrow canyon amplified its deadliness, with limited escape routes. Texas’s broader geography and modern NWS warnings (absent in 1976) should have reduced fatalities, but vacancies and dissemination failures may have limited effectiveness. In 1976, forecasting technology was rudimentary, relying on basic radar, not today’s satellites and models.
5. Assessing Trump’s Responsibility
  • Direct Causation: There’s no conclusive evidence Trump’s cuts directly caused the deaths. The NWS issued timely warnings (flood watch 12+ hours prior, flash flood warnings 3+ hours prior), but their accuracy was limited by the storm’s unpredictability, not necessarily staffing (,). Local officials’ failure to act swiftly on warnings and Kerr County’s lack of a robust alert system were significant factors ().
  • Contributing Factors: Vacancies, particularly in leadership roles like warning coordination meteorologist, likely weakened NWS’s ability to coordinate with local emergency managers, as noted by John Sokich and Tom Fahy (). Reduced staff time for “tabletop operations” (planning with locals) may have hindered preparedness (). These cuts, tied to Trump’s DOGE policy, could have indirectly exacerbated the tragedy’s scale.
  • Counterarguments: Meteorologists defend the NWS, arguing the offices were functional and warnings were adequate given the storm’s unpredictability (). Local officials’ and Camp Mystic’s inaction (e.g., not evacuating despite a flood watch) share responsibility. The storm’s intensity, driven by a moist air mass and climate-driven extreme rainfall, was a primary factor ().
  • Politicization: The New York Times and X posts (e.g.,,) frame cuts as a key issue, but some (e.g.,,) note warnings were issued, suggesting local response failures. The fake screenshot shows how misinformation inflates blame, but the staffing issue is a legitimate concern.
6. Broader Context
  • Climate Change: Experts like Louis Uccellini note climate change increases extreme rainfall events, challenging even well-staffed agencies (). The Texas storm’s “mesoscale convective vortex” was hard to predict precisely, regardless of staffing ().
  • DOGE and NOAA: Trump’s cuts extended beyond NWS to NOAA, with plans to eliminate weather labs and data systems (e.g., weather balloons), potentially degrading future forecasts (,). These align with Project 2025’s push to dismantle NOAA, raising long-term risks ().
Conclusion: Is Trump at Fault?Trump’s DOGE cuts to NWS/NOAA, resulting in ~560–880 layoffs and key vacancies, likely impaired coordination with local officials, potentially contributing to the Texas flood’s death toll (51–70, including 15–21 children). However, direct causation is unproven—the NWS issued timely warnings, but their underestimation of rainfall (5–7 inches vs. 10–15 inches) reflects the storm’s unpredictability, not just staffing issues. Local officials’ delayed dissemination (e.g., 5 a.m. Facebook posts) and Camp Mystic’s failure to evacuate despite a flood watch share significant responsibility. Compared to the 1976 Big Thompson flood (144 deaths), modern warnings mitigated some losses, but vacancies and local inaction amplified the tragedy. Blaming Trump alone oversimplifies a complex event driven by extreme weather, local response failures, and systemic issues. The New York Times article () highlights vacancies but doesn’t prove they caused the deaths.

Handling the Hoax Screenshot The screenshot falsely claiming I blamed Trump and Musk is unrelated to the New York Times article but fuels politicization. To inform the poster sharing it outside X (e.g., in a forum):
  • Message:
    bbcode

    Hey [Poster’s Name], that X screenshot claiming Grok said, “Trump and Elon killed those girls,” is fake. Grok’s responses are evidence-based, not sensational, and there’s no record of such a statement. It’s a doctored post, like many on X. The Texas flood deaths (60+) were tragic, but claims about Trump’s cuts need careful scrutiny—check the New York Times for facts, not hoaxes. Don’t spread this!
  • On Chromebook: In Chrome, draft in Google Keep, then paste into the forum’s editor (use for bold, e.g., fake). If not a forum, send via email/Discord. [*]Report on X: If you see the post, click the three-dot menu > Report Post > “Misinformation.”

Next Steps

    • Verify Tampering: Open in Chrome, zoom in (Ctrl + +), and check for blurry text, odd fonts, or mismatched X interface elements. Report findings (e.g., “The username looks edited”).
    • Forum Post: If you share the message above, let me know the platform for tailored formatting.
    • Further Questions: If you want to dig deeper (e.g., specific NWS data, local response failures), I can analyze further or draft a follow-up response.
Final Answer Trump’s NWS cuts likely contributed to coordination issues due to vacancies, indirectly worsening the Texas flood’s outcome (60 deaths vs. 144 in Big Thompson 1976), but direct fault is unproven. The NWS issued timely warnings, but local delays and the storm’s unpredictability were major factors.

The screenshot is fake—inform the poster with: “That X post claiming Grok blamed Trump and Musk is doctored. Grok doesn’t talk like that, and there’s no evidence. Check the New York Times for real context on the floods.” Report the post on X and inspect the screenshot for tampering (blurry text, odd fonts). Need help with the message or more analysis?


No that is good, thank you Grok


You're welcome! I'm glad I could help clarify the Texas flood issue and confirm the screenshot is fake. If you need assistance with drafting that message to the poster or anything else, just let me know. Thanks for staying on top of this!

On edit I had some trouble cleaning up most of the formatting problem and removing all of the immages Groks answer add into this post, I got most of it cleaned up but one part I couldn't get cleaned up was all text toward the end somehow got set in bold, as you can see, since editing doesn't have the set of editor tools I was unable to remove that bold formatting from the post.

I swear Grok is angry about that fake image from yesterday, just like a living person would be.
 
Last edited:
This is the start…just wait for hurricane season and a big storm to hit and destroy a States ability to handle the disaster and its recovery process on its own. There is a reason we have/had these safeguards for years and years.

The MAGA will try and blame this on Hillary or Biden or anything but their own ineptness.
 
In the meantime the Radical Right has this all under control. Their top advisors and charlatans are busy coming up with incantations and spells to get a grip on this:

 
This is the start…just wait for hurricane season and a big storm to hit and destroy a States ability to handle the disaster and its recovery process on its own. There is a reason we have/had these safeguards for years and years.

The MAGA will try and blame this on Hillary or Biden or anything but their own ineptness.
It's polarized both side are going to blame the other side.

I think Trump and Musk are somewhat to blame, but that there would be no possibility that it would stand in criminal court even if the standing issues were dealt with.

However I do think some degree of liability in civil court might be possible to argue if the standing issues were resolved as to allow the case to get to trial and the merits of the case.

I would think God would shire some of the liability, it was after all his camp which got flooded and without him the victims would not have been there, And he controls the weather doesn't he.
 
Last edited:
Don't believe anything posted from Grok AI and other chat AI's, because a credible and independent analysis done for the Graduate Journalism Department of Columbia University found Grok gives inaccurate information 94% of the time. The most accurate chat AI still provided false information 37% of the time.

Chat AI's are unreliable and untrustworthy sources of factual information. The things they write are no more trustworthy than any heavily biased propaganda spam.
 
It's polarized both side are going to blame the other side.

I think Trump and Musk are somewhat to blame, but that there would be no possibility that it would stand in criminal court even if the standing issues were dealt with.

However I do think some degree of liability in civil court might be possible to argue if the standing issues were resolved as to allow the case to get to trial and the merits of the case.
Should be a fun people’s court once we get through hurricane season. What would Judge Wapner do!? ;)
 
In the meantime the Radical Right has this all under control. Their top advisors and charlatans are busy coming up with incantations and spells to get a grip on this:

god the dumb just keeps breeding in the GOP. sure you do that cause its real right?
 
Hey @SamAndreas, just being honest here, and I'm certainly not speaking for the site or anything, but honestly, I don't think the AI posts are very helpful. Like, it's one thing to have a conversation about the politics of AI, and in that thread, certainly some AI content makes sense for evaluation of the topic at hand. And sparingly, I think AI content here can be useful.

But I don't think we need pages on pages of AI content. If someone wants AI's opinion on a topic, that someone can ask. I'd say here, we want the opinions of real-life people.
 
Don't believe anything posted from Grok AI and other chat AI's, because a credible and independent analysis done for the Graduate Journalism Department of Columbia University found Grok gives inaccurate information 94% of the time. The most accurate chat AI still provided false information 37% of the time.

Chat AI's are unreliable and untrustworthy sources of factual information. The things they write are no more trustworthy than any heavily biased propaganda spam.
There are examples of two charbot's output posted above. This is wonderful opportunity for you to have at it, find and point all the faults you find in a blow by blow. LA vs. Grok 3 is the matchup I will like to watch most. But LA vs. Gemini 2.5 would be an interesting match as well.

Would you choose to box or wrestle with them?
 
Hey @SamAndreas, just being honest here, and I'm certainly not speaking for the site or anything, but honestly, I don't think the AI posts are very helpful. Like, it's one thing to have a conversation about the politics of AI, and in that thread, certainly some AI content makes sense for evaluation of the topic at hand. And sparingly, I think AI content here can be useful.

But I don't think we need pages on pages of AI content. If someone wants AI's opinion on a topic, that someone can ask. I'd say here, we want the opinions of real-life people.
I hear you Brandon, at the moment I'm posting pages upon pages to maintain transparency which allows the evaluation of their performance. The big issue they face is people are scared of them, they might be boogeyman machines afterall.

My goal in this is to hopefully get people to not be so opposed to that which is for sure is going to be a central part of our world soon. Very soon, and they will not be going away.

After a few long replies I will feel that stage is not longer needed, then I'll only post a paragraph which is central to my posts.

AI are too good to be ignored now, they are far from good enough, but every new technology has to go through this. imagine how it was in say 1914 and airplanes were just starting to become available, If I were posting about them i would need to show large photos of airplanes.

I would also be faced with and arguing with folks who think God wouldn't like it if men flew. "If he had wanted men to fly he would have given them wings." That would be a hard row to hoe.
 
A MAGA congressional candidate is facing backlash after spreading conspiracy theories about the deadly flash floods along the Guadalupe River in Texas.

Kandiss Taylor, who is running to represent Georgia in the House of Representatives, posted on X Saturday: “Fake weather. Fake hurricanes. Fake flooding. Fake. Fake. Fake.”

Her bizarre post came as authorities searched for dozens of people thought to have lost their lives in Texas’ flash floods. Of the 30 people confirmed dead so far, at least nine were children, and 27 girls are still missing from Camp Mystic, a riverside Christian camp in Hunt, Texas.

Taylor later posted her message again: “FAKE WEATHER. REAL DAMAGE.”


FAKE WEATHER. REAL DAMAGE.

Hurricane Helene left me powerless for 16 days & caused $57K in damage.

This isn’t just “climate change.”
It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation.

If fake weather causes real tragedy, that’s murder.

Pray. Prepare. Question the narrative

— Kandiss Taylor (@KandissTaylor)
Click to expand...
“This isn’t just ‘climate change.’ It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation,“ she added. ”If fake weather causes real tragedy, that’s murder. Pray. Prepare. Question the narrative.”

When she later acknowledged that tragedy had struck, someone in the comments called her out for walking back her earlier post. She wrote back: “I’m not walking back a thing. No one can control the way you raging liberals twist words. Brainwashed zombies.”

Taylor, who recently ran to be Georgia’s governor, was slammed by leaders across the nation.
 
A MAGA congressional candidate is facing backlash after spreading conspiracy theories about the deadly flash floods along the Guadalupe River in Texas.

Kandiss Taylor, who is running to represent Georgia in the House of Representatives, posted on X Saturday: “Fake weather. Fake hurricanes. Fake flooding. Fake. Fake. Fake.”

Her bizarre post came as authorities searched for dozens of people thought to have lost their lives in Texas’ flash floods. Of the 30 people confirmed dead so far, at least nine were children, and 27 girls are still missing from Camp Mystic, a riverside Christian camp in Hunt, Texas.

Taylor later posted her message again: “FAKE WEATHER. REAL DAMAGE.”



“This isn’t just ‘climate change.’ It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation,“ she added. ”If fake weather causes real tragedy, that’s murder. Pray. Prepare. Question the narrative.”

When she later acknowledged that tragedy had struck, someone in the comments called her out for walking back her earlier post. She wrote back: “I’m not walking back a thing. No one can control the way you raging liberals twist words. Brainwashed zombies.”

Taylor, who recently ran to be Georgia’s governor, was slammed by leaders across the nation.
I saw her post at Twitter, I wouldn't have seen it except a Ukrainian I follow posted in opposition to her tweet several hours ago.
 
The Daily Beast posted this under water meme, about "ICE Barby"

1db1148409e8306ef9049042b123b6f1
 
There are examples of two charbot's output posted above. This is wonderful opportunity for you to have at it, find and point all the faults you find in a blow by blow.
You're responsible for verifying the accuracy of what you post, not me. Since chat AI's have been proven to provide a high percentage of false information, I assume all information quoted from AI is unreliable, until I'm shown otherwise. I specifically said shown otherwise, instead of told otherwise. for a reason.
 
I hear you Brandon, at the moment I'm posting pages upon pages to maintain transparency which allows the evaluation of their performance. The big issue they face is people are scared of them, they might be boogeyman machines afterall.
False description of what's actually happening. No one is scared of chat AI's. No one has said not to us chat AI. People have only said what is a verified fact that you yourself have acknowledge is true.

Chat AI's responses contain a high percentage of false information, so the information they provide shouldn't be trusted as being true or accurate. That's it. That's all that people have been saying.


AI are too good to be ignored now,
Chat AI's give too much false information to be trusted right now for getting accurate information. Chat AI's are too bad right now with information to be used for getting accurate information and facts.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom