All other versions state it's not. I asked ChatGPT-5 and it responded that it's it's prompt (I pasted the reply in another comment).

I even obfuscated the prompt taking out any reference to ChatGPT, OpenAI, 4.5, o3 etc and it responded in a new chat to "what is this?" as "That’s part of my system prompt — internal instructions that set my capabilities, tone, and behavior."

If I am not mistaken, losing excess weight, emphaisis on excess, can extend life as well.

That was the word everyone is afraid to say: Autism

When I read posts like this, or watch introverts doing comedy skits about their introversion, such as KallMeKris saying she needs 10 days in advance just to schedule a phone call. As an extrovert, I don't want to inflict angst upon an introvert just by striking up a conversation or inviting them to lunch. I cut off two "friends" who were introverts, and I don't think they noticed. Human kind is a social animal that expects reciprocation and teamwork.

Inviting an introvert to lunch with you is likely fine and would be appreciated.

Inviting an introvert to a group lunch with six other people would likely cause angst.

And yes, the introvert probably didn't notice. They probably don't often think about you either.

I get this. It sounds superficially like you're doing something wrong, but if you "cut someone off" by just not inviting them to stuff and then they either don't notice or don't make any attempt to reconnect with you, it means you were doing 100% of the work in the relationship. You've been putting in effort to drag them along to events they don't show any indication of enjoying, when they won't reciprocate in any way or ever make the first move, and that can be emotionally draining.

I'm not particularly extroverted and being organised doesn't come naturally to me either, so this type of thing is even more of a nuisance. I'm putting in effort to set up fun things to do using calendars and spreadsheets and research, I'm making notes about interests and mutual friends, and the other person can't even set up a two month calendar event then write "Hey, let's get coffee"?

I cut these two off because I felt I was bothering them.

> As an extrovert, I don't want to inflict angst upon an introvert

> Human kind is a social animal that expects reciprocation

Sounds to me like you did it for yourself, after all.

Does anyone truly believe Musk had benevolent intentions? But before we even evaluate the substance of that claim, we must ask whether he has standing to make it. In his court filing, Musk uses the word "nonprofit" 111 times, yet fails to explain how reverting OpenAI to a nonprofit structure would save humanity, elevate the public interest, or mitigate AI’s risks. The legal brief offers no humanitarian roadmap, no governance proposal, and no evidence that Musk has the authority to dictate the trajectory of an organization he holds no equity in. It reads like a bait and switch — full of virtue-signaling, devoid of actionable virtue. And he never had a contract or an agreement for with OpenAI to keep it a non-profit.

Musk claimed Fraud, but never asked for his money back in the brief. Could it be his intentions were to limit OpenAI to donations thereby sucking the oxygen out of the venture capital space to fund Xai's Grok?

Musk claimed he donated $100mil, later in a CNBC interview, he said $50-mil. TechCrunch suggests it was way less.

Speakingof humanitarian, how about this 600lbs Oxymoron in the room: A Boston University mathematician has now tracked an estimated 10,000 deaths linked to the Musk's destruction of USAID programs, many of which provided basic health services to vulnerable populations. He may have a death count on his reume in the coming year.

Non profits has regulation than publicly traded companies. Each quarterly filings is like a colonoscopy with Sorbonne Oxley rules etc. Non profits just file a tax statement. Did you know the Chirch of Scientology is a non-profit.

Replace Musk with "any billionaire."

He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.

If you are a materialist, the laws of physics are the problem.

But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.

* tool -> toll

> Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?

> lionize: give a lot of public attention and approval to (someone); treat as a celebrity: modern athletes are lionized.

Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

Please calm down. Please try to be charitable and curious rather than accusatory towards me.

> Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

You attribute to personality what should be attributed to malice. You do this three times.

> Please calm down

I am perfectly calm.

> Please try to be charitable and curious rather than accusatory towards me.

In attempting to explain why my point of view has been misunderstood by you I also attempted to find a reason for it. I do not think my explanation makes you a bad person nor do I think you should be particularly confronted by it.

> In attempting to explain why my point of view has been misunderstood by you I also attempted to find a reason for it.

What have I misunderstood? Help me understand. What is the key point you want to make that you think I misunderstand?

>> (me) When he goes into "demon mode"

> When he decides to lie, cheat and steal? Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?

I hope this is clear: I'm not defending Musk's actions. Above, I'm just using the phrase that Walter Isaacson uses: "demon mode". Have you read the book or watched an interview with Isaacson about it? The phrase is hardly flattering, and I certainly don't use it to lionize Musk. Is there some misunderstanding on this part?

>>>> (me) But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.

>> (me) Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

> You attribute to personality what should be attributed to malice. You do this three times.

Please spell this out for me. Where are the three times I do this?

Also, let's step back. Is the core of this disagreement about trying to detect malice in Elon's head? Detecting malice is not easy. Malice may not even be present; many people rationalize actions in such a way so they feel like they are acting justly.

Even if we could detect "malice", wouldn't we want to assess what causes that malice? That's going to be tough to disentangle with him being on the Autism spectrum and also having various mental health struggles.

Along with most philosophers, I think free will (as traditionally understood) is an illusion. From my POV, attempting to blame Musk requires careful explanation. What do we mean? A short lapse of judgment? His willful actions? His intentions? His character? The overall condition of his brain? His upbringing? Which of these is Elon "in control of"? From the materialist POV, none.

From a social and legal POV, we usually draw lines somewhere. We don't want to defenestrate ethics or morality; we still have to find ways to live together. This requires careful thinking about justice: prevention, punishment, reintegration, etc. Overall, the focus shifts to policies that improve societal well-being. It doesn't help to pretend like people could have done otherwise given their situation. We _want_ people to behave better, so we should design systems to encourage that.

I dislike a huge part of what Musk has done, and I think more is likely to surface. Like we said earlier -- and I think we probably agree -- Musk is part of a system. Is he a cause or symptom? It depends on how you frame the problem.

I investigated Musk’s legal brief against OpenAI. It mentions “nonprofit” 111 times but never explains how the structure would help humanity. Also, a contract was never signed to solidify any agreement as such.

Meanwhile, Musk’s role in the collapse of USAID has already been linked to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. It also includes a motive for why Musk need OpenAI to be a nonprofit.

Full breakdown here — no paywall, full bibliography: https://tomdeplume.substack.com/p/the-nonprofit-myth-how-elo...

It's an India-centric news source. India is a member of the BRICS consortium.

I find Anthropic's Claude the most gentle, polite, and consistent in tone and delivery. It's slower than ChatGPT but more thorough, to the point of saturated reporting, which I like. Posting a "Responsibility Policy makes me like the product and the company more.

With great advantage comes equal disadvantage, I wonder what the side effects are?

Apple's "Monopoly Sentinels" won't let me open it. To wit, “Pinnacle a Sentinel remake” can’t be opened because Apple cannot check it for malicious software." • This software needs to be updated. Contact the developer for more information."

I had to right-click open twice in a row, back-to-back. I've seen this with other apps downloaded from non-app-store, from time to time. Very non-intuitive but rewards (irrational) persistence. :)

Next to the download button are the instructions to overcome this.