Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men. And they finally figured out why. They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas. The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality. First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity." It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time. But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy. The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones. Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark. They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering. A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7. The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide. Nobody explicitly coded these rules. This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.

Here’s what Call Her Daddy won't tell you: a growing share of marriages today go the distance. The “trade up” mindset @alexandracooper & @SophiaBush are pushing is an outlier, not the norm. Divorce is down nearly 40% since peaking @ 1980 & each new cohort of married couples is more stable than the one before. ☑️ Boomer couples who wed in the ’70s/’80s: @ 50% will divorce ☑️ Couples who married in the 2010s+ are on track to do far better That's because--for better and for worse--marriage is getting more selective & more durable.

Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men. And they finally figured out why. They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas. The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality. First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity." It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time. But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy. The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones. Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark. They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering. A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7. The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide. Nobody explicitly coded these rules. This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.

🚨🚨And…a NEW Court Order from the Judge: “PROCEED USING PSEUDONYM” Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond has granted permission for Jane Doe to continue her lawsuit anonymously and issued a warning about online harassment. The judge warned that cyberstalking and threats across state lines, whether targeting Doe, the defendants or their attorneys, could lead to FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES. She also suggested expanding privacy protections to the named defendants and potential witnesses. None of the defendants opposed Doe's request for anonymity.

President Trump was urged NOT to hire Karoline Leavitt as White House press secretary because she was too young. His response? "You can do it." Leavitt recalls Trump telling her that people had called him to argue against giving her the job because of her age during a @TPUSA faith event. "When I was your age, I was building buildings in Manhattan, and you can do it," Trump told her. But Leavitt says there's something else she turns to before facing reporters at the White House podium: prayer. She reveals the words she says to God before stepping into the briefing room and how she believes those prayers have been answered.

Judge Perry-Bond has ruled that Jane Doe will be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym in the Cornell 7 case. She takes the opportunity to write that: > [C]yberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state lines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defendants, or their attorneys, can be considered a federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution. Since I expect this to be misinterpreted, it's probably worth noting that this order does not bind anyone other than “parties, their counsel, the parties' agents, and the [clerk's] office”.

One of the truest memes ever created.