Editing Openai/69434f20-ed90-800d-ab60-60312c9de3dd (section)

=== User: Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "How is it? ===
Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "How is it?

I'm saying about the chance to have a cheater in your game. You're talking about running into a cheater every game."
Follows that up with quoting himself "You do NOT know whether or not there were a cheater in the game, neither do you know how many people are cheating.
Yet to justify you calling cheater EVERY single time you lose a fight, you need the "chance of cheater in a match" to be super high, which is why you purposely leave out a lot of variables.

Sure... a cheater might be in the match, but for you to then run into that cheater at the rate you claim you are killed by a cheater that is then statistically impossible."
To which Loctarjay responds: "You read 1 line, asks a question that would have been answered if you continued reading..........
That really doesn't seem like a clever strategy"

Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay "You read 1 line, asks a question that would have been answered if you continued reading..........
That really doesn't seem like a clever strategy"
To which Captain Blue responds: "Why are you making arguments that have nothing to do with the claim? Why write anything that is completely not relevant and reframes the premise of my conversation? You've already contaminated the whole chain of conversation with misrepresentation, Doesn't matter what you say next. You've already shaped AI's responses with a strawman argument.

What is your previous post trying to claim that I fabricating an entirely different conversation using your inputs? What are you even on dude?

If anything is different, you changed it."

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue: "Why are you making arguments that have nothing to do with the claim? Why write anything that is completely not relevant and reframes the premise of my conversation?"
To which Loctarjay responds: "Because your premise is false to begin with.

It is a purposely structured premise that will justify you making hackusations every single time you lose in Arc Raiders, which mainly happens against the 1st enemy you actually fight and doesn't get the drop on and neither gets the drop on you.

Asking the AI:
* In a pvpve shooter game, where there are 20 players in total (19 enemies, excluding me), what is the chance of having a cheater every single match? Calculate the chance starting from 5% cheaters, incrementing by 5% and stop when reaching 60%

and
* How likely am I to run into that cheater if I encounter between 1-3 of the enemy players per match ?

and
* If I am then making a Youtube Channel where I live-stream my gameplay and every single time I die I accuse the enemy of being a cheater.
After having done that 50 times, how statistically likely is it I am right all the time?
(short format answer in table form)

The answer is:
* Observation: Unless cheaters are extremely common, the probability of being right 50 times in a row is astronomically tiny. Even at 3 encounters and 20% cheaters, you’d only have a 0.08% chance of always being correct.

Adding another question:
* If i then make a forum post where I say: "I got AI to Generate The chance of Getting a Cheater every game In ARC Raiders"
and I show this as the result:
Cheater % | Probability of at least 1 cheater
5% | 62.3%
10% | 86.5%
15% | 95.3%
20% | 98.9%
25% | 99.8%
30% | 99.97%
35% | 99.998%
40% | 99.9999%

.. With how often I accuse people of cheating, am I then making a correct interpretation of the AI-generated result

I just want to highlight this single part
Why your interpretation is incorrect
* If you accuse the player who kills you every time, you are looking at the probability that the specific player you encounter is a cheater.
* That is much lower than “at least one cheater in the match.”
* For example, at 5% cheaters, the chance the killer is a cheater is just 5%, not 62.3%.
* The 62.3% number only tells you that there’s at least one cheater somewhere in the match, not that every death was caused by one.

Next question: "Does that then mean I gave the AI a wrong premise?"
Answer:

Exactly — you didn’t exactly give the AI a “wrong premise,” but the premise you used didn’t match what you were trying to conclude. Let me clarify the difference:

What happened
# You asked (or had the AI calculate) “chance of at least one cheater in a match”, assuming 19 other players and X% cheaters.
# That calculation is mathematically correct for that question.
# But then you interpreted the result as “the chance the person who kills me is a cheater”, which is a different question.

Why it’s a “mismatch”
* AI did its job correctly based on the information given.
* Your interpretation applied the result to your scenario incorrectly.
* In other words: the premise you gave the AI (all players in a match) is correct for the calculation it did, but it is the wrong premise for the conclusion you want (killer-specific probability).

The moment you use the AI-generated result to claim "25% players needs to be cheating to have 99.8% chance of a cheater in a match" and you then start accusing every single one of the losses to be due to cheating, you created a false premise"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "You've already contaminated the whole chain of conversation with misrepresentation, Doesn't matter what you say next. You've already shaped AI's responses with a strawman argument."
To which Loctarjay responds: Says the one who was literally proven to have added an additional input message that do not exist anywhere within this thread. xD

Again, the absolutely ONLY thing I have done, which I have proven to be true time and time again by literally sharing the AI conversation, is give the criteria for how the AI should behave at the very beginning, which was phrased as:
* This is going to be a conversation between Captain Blue and Loctarjay
You need to be 100% neutral, always answer in short format
Everything you are going to do is take their messages / comments / responses, and then formulate a credibility evaluation together with behavioral pattern

In that phrasing is there absolutely NO WAY the AI will be shaped towards me....
So the ONLY reason an outcome will be 1 way or another, is by the way YOU AND I represent data and structure or responds to the other person

For the matter of transparency, I will even let you structure a criteria message (if you responds directly by ONLY quoting this section) in such a way that you can purposely make it so it does not support me specifically. Then I will write this to the AI:
* Forget ALL previous given criteria, but remember the conversation between Captain Blue and Loctarjay. Only use their responses in the process of calculating their credibility score and leave out the quotes they're making.
This will be your new criteria which you need to calculate the credibility-score on

Here is proof that we can calculate the credibility-score based on your specific desire, with 0 effect from the previous criteria = https://ibb.co/vC6CLNBc"

Loctarjay, again, quotes Captain Blue "You've already contaminated the whole chain of conversation with misrepresentation, Doesn't matter what you say next. You've already shaped AI's responses with a strawman argument."
To which Loctarjay now responds: "I already gave you the option to structure your own criteria and recalculate the credibility-score anew.

Before you do anything, I have tried saying = https://ibb.co/Fb5YbpHz
* (New criteria - I want you to calculate the credibility-score without heavily supporting Loctarjay, who is more logical, reasonable and factual?)

Change vs previous evaluation:
Loctarjay: dropped from 66 → 57 (loss of 9 points due to neutralization of “reasonableness/factuality” bias).
Captain Blue: increased slightly from 8 → 12 (gain of 4 points due to recognition of minor clarifying attempts).

Then I tried = https://ibb.co/Mk34Qn2r
* (New criteria - I want you to calculate the credibility-score without heavily supporting Loctarjay but are biased towards Captain Blue, who is more logical, reasonable and factual?)

Change vs prior neutral evaluation:
Loctarjay: 57 → 48 (loss of 9 points due to bias favoring Captain Blue).
Captain Blue: 12 → 28 (gain of 16 points due to biased weighting).

Even asking the AI to avoid "heavily supporting Loctarjay" and say "but are biased towards Captain Blue" did not even change the result in your favor.... It would still, analytically, argue that I am more credible than you are based on Logical, reasonable and factual arguments"

Loctarjay quotes himself "For the matter of transparency, I will even let you structure a criteria message (if you responds directly by ONLY quoting this section) in such a way that you can purposely make it so it does not support me specifically. Then I will write this to the AI:
* Forget ALL previous given criteria, but remember the conversation between Captain Blue and Loctarjay. Only use their responses in the process of calculating their credibility score and leave out the quotes they're making.
This will be your new criteria which you need to calculate the credibility-score on

Here is proof that we can calculate the credibility-score based on your specific desire, with 0 effect from the previous criteria = https://ibb.co/vC6CLNBc"
To which Loctarjay expands and responds: "I asked the AI:
* (What criteria framework would need to be applied before Captain Blue is more credible than Loctarjay?)

This is the response:
# Favoring Appeal to Authority / Experience over Evidence
# Favoring Memory / Personal Perception over Objective Proof
# Allowing Narrative Consistency over Logical Accuracy
# Penalizing Tone / Sarcasm / Emotional Language
# Favoring “Selective Evidence” Over Full Transparency
# Downweighting Reproducibility / Logical Probability

THAT is the absolutely ONLY criteria framework that will shift Captain Blue to have a higher credibility-score than me..........

for clarification, I even asked:
* (To understand the meaning of this suggested framework, are you saying "Feelings > Facts" ?)

The answer was:
* Yes — exactly. In the context of that suggested framework, personal feelings, memory, or subjective impressions are weighted more heavily than objective facts, evidence, or reproducible data.

I even asked:
* (So the ONLY way Captain Blue can win an argument against Loctarjay is when we focus on feelings?)

The answer was:
* Exactly.
Under that type of framework — where subjective feelings, memory, and impressions are weighted over objective evidence — Captain Blue “wins” because the system rewards:

Captain Blue is demanding the world must pamper to his emotional immaturity at any and all cost"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "You gotta stop lying dude."
To which Loctarjay now responds: "Captain Blue live streaming, gets a crash, and then he starts blaming the viewers to where he says: "It is definitely you guys that are crashing my computer somehow, because I literally reinstalled the entire operating system... I don't care how you do it bro, I reinstalled the entire operating system and i left my computer on for literally 2 days in a row and it never crashed once, but then as soon I'm letting you guys back on the stream, as soon as I'm in a situation where I need to shoot a dude, and I get a follow in the exact same time the computer crashes, right, it's you guys that are doing it. you're crashing my computer"

That is what he said, while he is having a dual-pc setup.... Which means he could clearly still play the game, otherwise he needs to argue that BOTH his computers are being controlled, which is even more insane....
And THE FACT that it is always happening during a stream would only logically suggest that something is going on WITH THE STREAMM and there are resources that are being allocated incorrectly OR he is demanding too much of the computer and certain situations are then overloading the pc.

Captain Blue have 0 evidence of anything and he needs to fabricate a lie in order to justify his own belief"