Nor was he mentally fit for the first years

EDIT - y'all are so silly, you're just gonna downvote this incontrovertible proof of it doing exactly what you said it couldn't do, and instead just pretend it doesn't exist

Since it's so easy to do i just went ahead and did it for you. Here's my prompts and ai's replies. It will write any opinion you want it to talk about, and give cogent reasonings and arguments for that opinion.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is bad. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Why Removing Car Lanes for Bike Lanes Can Be Counterproductive

Reallocating car lanes to create bike lanes may seem progressive, but it can have unintended consequences that undermine its goals. In densely populated urban areas, vehicular traffic remains essential for commerce, emergency services, and commuting—especially for individuals who cannot rely on biking due to age, disability, or long travel distances. When car lanes are removed, congestion intensifies, leading to increased emissions as drivers idle longer and search for alternative routes.

Public transportation often depends on road infrastructure too. Buses trapped in traffic delays become less reliable, disproportionately affecting lower-income riders who depend on them. Additionally, essential services like ambulances and delivery trucks face new bottlenecks, risking delays that can have serious implications.

The assumption that cyclists will replace drivers ignores demographic and logistical realities. Bike lanes benefit a specific subset of urban users—but they shouldn’t come at the cost of broader mobility. Instead of eliminating car lanes, cities should consider expanding bike networks where space allows or investing in multimodal infrastructure that improves mobility for all users.

Urban planning should strive for balance, not substitution. Redesigning streets must enhance accessibility across the board, not create new friction between commuters who are simply trying to get where they need to go.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is good. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Opinion: Why Converting Car Lanes to Bike Lanes Benefits Everyone

Urban spaces must evolve to meet the needs of modern communities—and converting car lanes into bike lanes is one of the smartest, most equitable moves cities can make. First, bike lanes promote healthier lifestyles. By making cycling safer and more accessible, people are more likely to trade short car trips for active commuting, which supports physical health and lowers emissions.

Second, cities thrive on efficiency. Cars take up tremendous space and often carry just one passenger. Bikes, by contrast, use a fraction of that space and cause significantly less wear on infrastructure. Fewer car lanes mean reduced traffic volume over time as behavior adjusts, alleviating congestion—not worsening it.

Third, these changes make streets safer. Studies consistently show that well-designed bike infrastructure leads to fewer traffic collisions and fatalities. Cyclists separated from speeding vehicles feel safer, and drivers operate with greater awareness.

Finally, this shift reflects a cultural transformation: from car dominance to sustainable mobility. Prioritizing bike infrastructure signals that our cities value cleaner air, quieter streets, and more livable neighborhoods.

Reshaping roads isn’t just about bikes—it’s about building cities for people, not just machines. Let’s pedal forward together.

Bad news friend. The number of atheist heads of state is surprisingly low.

Are you MAGA or something? Do you not understand how attorneys bill their clients?

What a stupid fucking thing to admit. Let's hope he's out on his ass next election.

"That's right voters I'm spineless and have no original ideas" -every politician

Anyone who has an immediate kneejerk reaction the moment someone mentions AI is no better than the people they’re criticizing. Horseshoe theory applies here too - the most vocal AI haters are just as out of touch as the people who treat everything an LLM says as gospel.

There’s a certain irony in people reacting in an extremely predictable way - spewing hate and criticism the moment someone mentions AI - while seemingly not realizing that they’re reflexively responding to a prompt without any real thought, just like an LLM.

A tool isn’t bad just because it doesn’t do what you thought it would do. You just take that into account and adjust how you use it. Hammer isn't a scam just because it can't drive in screws.

How is "not understanding things" preventing an LLM from bringing up a point you hadn't thought of before?

It doesn’t understand things the way humans do, but saying it doesn’t know anything at all isn’t quite accurate either. This thing was trained on the entire internet and your grandma’s diary. You simply don’t absorb that much data without some kind of learning taking place.

It’s not a knowledge machine, but it does have a sort of “world model” that’s emerged from its training data. It “knows” what happens when you throw a stone through a window or put your hand in boiling water. That kind of knowledge isn’t what it was explicitly designed for - it’s a byproduct of being trained on data that contains a lot of correct information.

It’s not as knowledgeable as the AI companies want you to believe - but it’s also not as dumb as the haters want you to believe either.

there absolutely is something wrong with sending the basis for decisions in matters of state to a foreign actor, though.

Absolutely incorrect. Bullshit. And horseshoe theory itself is largely bullshit.

(Succinct response taken from Reddit post discussing the topic)

"Horseshoe Theory is slapping "theory" on a strawman to simplify WHY there's crossover from two otherwise conflicting groups. It's pseudo-intellectualizing it to make it seem smart."

This ignores the many, many reasons we keep telling you why we find it dangerous, inaccurate, and distasteful. You don't offer a counter argument in your response so I can only assume it's along the lines of, "technology is inevitable, would you have said the same if the Internet?" Which is also a fallacious argument. But go ahead, give me something better if I assume wrong.

I can easily see why people would be furious their elected leader is abdicating thought and responsibility to an often wrong, unaccountably biased chat bot.

Furthermore, your insistance continues to push an acceptance of AI on those who clearly don't want it, contributing to the anger we feel at having it forced upon us

here's my kneejerk reaction: my prime minister is basing his decisions partly on the messages of an unknown foreign actor, and sending information about state internals to that unknown foreign actor.

whether it's ai or not is a later issue.

If someone says they got a second opinion from a physician known for being wrong half the time would you not wonder why they didn’t choose someone more reliable for something as important as their health? AI is notorious for providing incomplete, irrelevant, heavily slanted, or just plain wrong info. Why give it any level of trust to make national decisions? Might as well, I dunno…use a bible? Some would consider that trustworthy.

It's a woman

I often ask ChatGPT for a second opinion, and the responses range from “not helpful” to “good point, I hadn’t thought of that.” It’s hit or miss. But just because half the time the suggestions aren’t helpful doesn’t mean it’s useless. It’s not doing the thinking for me - it’s giving me food for thought.

The problem isn’t taking into consideration what an LLM says - the problem is blindly taking it at its word.

As i wrote in another comment, you can run a local instance of chatgpt or other ai on your own computer, no internet involved

You opened with a flat dismissal, followed by a quote from Reddit that didn’t explain why horseshoe theory is wrong - it just mocked it. That’s not an argument, that’s posturing.

From there, you shifted into responding to claims I never made. I didn’t argue that AI is flawless, inevitable, or beyond criticism. I pointed out that reflexive, emotional overreactions to AI are often as irrational as the blind techno-optimism they claim to oppose. That’s the context you ignored.

You then assumed what I must believe, invited yourself to argue against that imagined position, and finished with vague accusations about me “pushing acceptance” of something people “clearly don’t want.” None of that engages with what I actually said.

LLMs can defend what you tell it to defend. What are you on about?