Munchies:
In other words, Chat-GPT hallucinated this information.

Jakeescape99:
According to Chat-GPT, only 0.25% of the US population has a BMI of 50 or more. I seriously thought that it was way more than that lol. I'd have to be over 400lbs to hit that BMI, but I think that's going to have to be my goal lol.

Munchies:
Thus is a beautiful example of why you should not use Chat-GPT for research.

The highest BMI category the CDC and the NIH track is 40 or more - which is severe obesity. This is a little over 9% of the US population. There's no tracking for Americans with a BMI of 50% or more.

In other words, Chat-GPT hallucinated this information.

Letters And Numbers:
Chat gpt will give its sources if you ask sometimes. It might not be hallucinated, it also might not be accurate. Although I don’t know how reliable CDC/NIH data is going forward, either. Might be an issue by issue thing.

Munchies:
Actually, historically, Enas and I don't get along. I'm simply being entertained.

FatGTP:
You are clearly overlooking the implicit assumptions you rely on. That's why the circularity is invisible to you. It will be difficult to help you from the outside as long as you keep confirming those assumptions to yourself.

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
I will take this as a yes just because what you said earlier sounded like it is what i linked.

So, by definition, circular reasoning requires 2 assertions. One must necesarily be a premise and the other, again must necesarily be, the conclusion. But in what i said, for which you accused me of circular reasoning, i only made one assertion, not two. That means it is definetely not circular reasoning. So this accusation falls apart.

In fact, just because it was a single assertion and not an argument to begin with, it cannot constitute any kind of logical fallacy. Assertions by themselves cannot be fallacious. All they can be is true, or false.

FatGTP:
You are clearly overlooking the implicit assumptions you rely on. That's why the circularity is invisible to you. It will be difficult to help you from the outside as long as you keep confirming those assumptions to yourself.

Enas:
I would again ask you to elaborate but this is getting boring. You are no longer engaging with the thread.

I explained why it is impossible, for what i said earlier, to be circular reasoning, and you completely ignoring that.

Instead you prefer to act mystical, just like oftentimes, intelectual people tend to hide behind complicated terminology. I know that because you accuse and assert things without really elaborating what you mean.

FatGTP:
I already said I can't help you from the outside. You've put yourself in a position, by selectively choosing evidence, that only ever confirms your beliefs. I can't reach you with facts or proof. Or hypothetically, is there anything that could change your views on AI?

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
I will take this as a yes just because what you said earlier sounded like it is what i linked.

So, by definition, circular reasoning requires 2 assertions. One must necesarily be a premise and the other, again must necesarily be, the conclusion. But in what i said, for which you accused me of circular reasoning, i only made one assertion, not two. That means it is definetely not circular reasoning. So this accusation falls apart.

In fact, just because it was a single assertion and not an argument to begin with, it cannot constitute any kind of logical fallacy. Assertions by themselves cannot be fallacious. All they can be is true, or false.

FatGTP:
You are clearly overlooking the implicit assumptions you rely on. That's why the circularity is invisible to you. It will be difficult to help you from the outside as long as you keep confirming those assumptions to yourself.

Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.

Enas:
By "logical circularity" you mean this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


FatGTP:
The pernicious part is that you yourself are trapped in it. Even if Wikipedia explains the mechanism to you in detail, you'll struggle to recognize what it describes within your flawed thesis. That, too, is inherent to the situation.

Enas:
I dont need to understand you in order to understand if and how my logic is faulty.

FatGTP:
That's called a logical circularity, and that exactly illustrates where your problem lies, thanks.

Munchies:
You are a troll. There's nothing to understand.

Some people choose not to feed the trolls. Some choose to point them and make them dance.

FatGTP:
Your craving for attention is your motivation, not any moral considerations. You simply enjoy playing the superior one and don’t even notice how much you yourself are becoming what you hate. Outsiders rarely bother to analyze threads completely. They only see two people squabbling. You probably haven't noticed that yet.

Enas:
That implies you've ignored what people other than Munchies, have said in this thread.

Plus, Munchies has already told you she is a sadist who will troll back the trolls. You don’t need to assume her motivations, she already asserted that, and her behavior aligns with it.

At this point, for me, this is litteraly just an exercise to point out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies you make.

FatGTP:
That more suggests there's something wrong with your 'logic'.

Enas:
Elaborate please, im all ears!

FatGTP:
I would actually explain it to you if there were any chance that you truly wanted to understand me. But by now that seems out of the question.