this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
253 points (90.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3694 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Even if we assumed ChatGPT were completely accurate, that answer includes enough weasel words so it is not sufficient here.

varies significantly among individuals … might retain …. may not completely reverse

All this tells us is that making this fair is not an easy answer, anything more is individual interpretation. It probably needs some sort of medical consensus.

How did they choose four years? Did they pull that out of their asses, or was there medical input? Is there a reason to expect ChatGPT to be a better source than what they used?

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Four years was number given in the question, because this number was selected by boxing rules.

As for the rest, are you suggesting that a post for discussion on internet should have the same level of credence as scientific article or article in encyclopedia? Why suddenly such super-high standards to my poste? Coincidently, no-one, despite criticism of my use of ChatGPT, pointed on even single mistake in that text.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It doesn’t need a mistake.

  • Others pointed to it as being non-authoritative: we don’t need to prove it wrong, just that it doesn’t know. This is like listening to Aunt Marge on Facebook: I don’t have to know whether she’s right to be skeptical of her as an “expert”.
  • my contention was that even if we assume Au t Marge is right, the answer is insufficient fr the question.

You’re complaining that four years of hormone therapy is insufficient without knowing where that came from or why, but we’re saying we’re not listening to Aunt Marge as more of an authority.

I have no idea whether their decision is sound or what facts they base it on, but I’m also not taking Au t Marge’s word for it that they’re wrong