Are we surprised that it’s doing exactly it was instructed to do, that there are dipshits who would struct such things, that OpenAI would feature a GPT like this, or some combination of the three?
Must have been trained on reddit content
When I read ‘subhuman men’ Andrew Tate’ image flashed in my mind.
I can’t help but feel that even bad news like this just pushes the AI hype.
No, it isn’t “intelligent” and won’t be fo centuries to come. It’s just a mirror of the internet, so course it sometimes comes up with insane bullshit. Garbage in, garbage out.
It all reminds me of the “virtual reality” hype of the '90s, which really just meant “faster graphics cards”.
As someone with 5,000 hours logged into virtual reality as of 2025, your comment leaves me a little confused. 😵💫
You mean “VR Ready” as like, a marketing terminology, right?
Because high-quality, full-body motion tracking virtual reality is available to everyone today for around $3,000-$5,000. It used to cost $140,000 in 1996.
Dude trust me bro this plot of land on Second Life will be worth more than your house in the future, this is the world wide web bro
Second Life might not be as universally successful as originally envisioned but it is still going 20 years later and land indeed still sells for thousands of US$ in certain popular locations so it is actually a pretty bad example of hype that was completely baseless, it was just over-hyped, not like current hype cycles that are pretty much 100% bullshit like cryptocurrencies, the Hyperloop, self driving cars or AI replacing workers.
The promise was that people would literally stop going to real life music shows to watch them on Second Life, buying fake cans of sponsored Coca-Cola and inviting friends to one night stands on their digital flats. Going on for 20 years is not the norm, but not unusual either - RuneScape is older and my neighbors have no idea what it is.
The reality is that we forgot about the game in less than two years and the surviving community is small, even if they pay a lot.
That’s exactly what’s going to happen to AI agents promising to replace an entire department or the creative team in a studio.
Well the furry sex scene is going strong… Probably.
presumably, the furry sex AIs will become a decent cottage industry
30% mirror of the Internet, 70% mirror of the user
How long till it switches over to a ‘sissy hypno’ mode based on further responses / profiling?
Oh lord, gotta love that the entire tech industry, snd many other industries, are putting all their proverbial chips on investing into an actual SCP, Euclid class cognitohazard machine.
Hopefully quickly. The incel to transfem pipeline can always use more lubricant.
What is a sissy hypno mode?
lol, google it
(or well, you know, use a less shitty search engine if possible)
i e621’d it and i learnt real good
… and today i learn about e261.
Welp.
The lobotomized chimp with a typewriter trained on internet comments is now reproducing internet commentary? I’m shocked!
Well not that shocked
Totally negligent on behalf of OpenAI to let this thing into their store. Let’s see if they take it down now that the spotlight is on.
“negligent” is letting them off way too lightly
How long until the bot actively promotes or encourages violence?
I get pretty violent when I realize I’m talking to a ChatGPT wrapper instead of actual support
OpenAI already has military contracts
I mean, telling incels to do bad things in a crowded environment
The creators of this thing probably agree with the bot.
Link to bot?
How does one promote involuntary celibacy? And what on earth this has to do with looksmaxing? Those are entirely different things for entirely different audiences. The core idea in “incel ideology” is that there’s nothing you can do about it.
The Tates sell their “be a man” coaching package. The message from the top of this bullshit, is that there is something you can do, we have the secrets, now give us money.
The Tates sell their “be a man” coaching package
As if he’d know how.
See my reply below.
No that’s not really true from what I heard. Tons of vindicta and FDS type femcels and Tate fan manosphere loons are into looksmaxxing and moneymaxxing and whatnot. Ironically enough, blackpilled proper withdrawn hikki incels at least don’t get taken for a ride by grifters so much.
I see at least three different ways people use the term incel, and mixing them up leads to a lot of noise in these discussions. First, there’s the literal definition - someone who is involuntarily celibate but doesn’t necessarily hold resentment or misogynistic views. They might even be actively trying to improve their situation, through social development, fitness, or other personal changes.
Then there’s what I’d call the ideological definition - this is closer to the original online “incel community” form: people who believe they’re permanently locked out of dating and sex due to genetics or physical traits, and who often adopt a fatalistic worldview and resentment towards women because of it. That group tends to see looksmaxxing as a waste of time or a cope, because they’ve already written themselves off as hopeless. That was the version I was referring to in my comment.
And then there’s the slur usage, which is probably the most common in everyday discourse now: “incel” as a catch-all insult aimed at men with unpopular, toxic, or misogynistic views, whether or not they’re actually celibate or share any ideological connection to the incel community. This version often gets applied to manosphere types, Andrew Tate fans, or anyone viewed as a reactionary online. But here’s the irony - many of those guys despise incels and distance themselves from that label. Likewise, I’d say most ideological incels don’t align with Tate’s worldview either. Tate’s core message is about self-improvement to gain status and sexual access, while incels - at least in their blackpilled form - tend to reject the idea that improvement is even possible.
So yeah, I agree there’s a lot of grift and posturing in these online spaces, but we’re not talking about a single, coherent group. That was the point of my original comment: looksmaxxing isn’t inherently tied to incel ideology. In fact, it contradicts the most fatalistic version of it. Conflating them flattens out the distinctions between self-improvement, toxic ideology, and hopelessness - and I think that matters if we want to criticize these cultures without just throwing buzzwords around.
You’re spot on, I’m sorry for my loose usage of the term.
But I dont necessarily fully agree with your definitions either. Don’t get me wrong they are soundly constructed, I just don’t personally see it the same way. The slur one is fine and I largely agree.
As for the ideological definition I’m not sure that you can decidedly say that self-improvement is at odds with it.
I think a full definition for me would be mostly related to the culture of specific online spaces, what I would call “4chan social dynamics” and it’s memes and people who buy into them past a certain point, and very little to do with any sexual status or lack thereof, which there’s nothing actually wrong with, it’s fairly obvious that lack of sexual access for men is a significant detriment to their quality of life and it’s complex societal problem to be solved like any other. It’s not for me to really talk about at length because I’m not a man.
I would argue though that “femcels” in communities like FDS and (I’m not sure if it’s a thing still) Vindicta are very much thinking along the exact same lines despite very few of them being involuntarily celibate or identifying with the label in any significant way.
Likewise men who have sex but still buy into these memes are also still ideologically incels under this definition.
I think this grouping is more useful because it allows us to identify ideological and philosophical commonalities between more stereotypical incels and those who wouldn’t on the surface be such.
What I’ve found across my observations is if grouped this way, plenty of these people actually do practice self-improvement and are explicitly motivated to do so via their ideology. A particular telltale sign is active hostility and contempt towards those who do not buy into the same memes.
So I don’t necessarily see a toxic variety of “self-improvement” as being contrary at all to this ideology, in fact if anything I see the “blackpilled” (or in less internet terms - hopeless) variety as being far less harmful than the “redpilled” variety which is often used to exploit people economically via endless lifestyle coaching guides and courses and even transparent pyramid schemes alongside usually a serving of mysogyny and reducing women’s behaviour to some sort of conspiratorial pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychology “harsh truth” that only serves to further disconnect people from the real world and entrap them in cycles of financial exploitation.
In plain English, in the best case the very framing of “work out to get a girlfriend” is inherently distorting reality into 4chan social dynamics and implying a causality that isn’t there (e.g. “guys who work out get girls”) when in reality women aren’t something to “get”, and many men don’t work out and have women all the same.
Through this lens “looksmaxxing” is problematic the same way those fake “diet” aids are, even when the implication is unspoken.
When you introduce the profit motive into this, there’s never any incentive for people to get out of the cycle, only deeper in.
In contrast the ones who think self-improvement is a cope maybe have some unproductive ideas but honestly I just don’t think people holding communions of shared self-loathing is a particularly huge problem unless they threaten and go through on real world harm ala Elliot Rodgers or whatever his name was.
Also sorry for the long-winded response, I just want to add that I may sound overly harsh on self-improvement but this is coming from someone who is a staunch self-improver myself.
I’m not at all against self-improvement in the slightest, but I think it’s important to work towards whatever goals one may set for the right reasons as well, and recognize when a drive for self-improvement stems from a “toxic” (less productive) place and when it stems from a “legitimate” place (actually solves problems).
I think you might be right that the term incel has gone through some concept creep over time. What I’d call “classical inceldom” definitely had a fatalistic core - people who believed that nothing they did could change their circumstances. In those spaces, self-improvement wasn’t just seen as pointless, it was actively discouraged. There’s a strong crabs-in-a-bucket mentality, where even small expressions of hope - like saying a waitress smiled at you - are treated as betrayal. That kind of remark gets torn down because it suggests there is hope, and hope runs against the entire premise of the community.
So while I don’t necessarily disagree with how you’re framing things, I think it’s important we clarify what version of incel we’re each talking about. Otherwise, it’s easy to talk past one another while thinking we’re arguing about the same thing.
Agreed! Thanks for this discussion.
