Finally What Chat GPT admitted about Pedophilia.

[Valerian]

I had a very long discussion with Chat GPT on the subject of “pedophilia” since GPTChat strongly justifying the institutional Anti-pedo stance from top to bottom. However, finally it started admitting, It could be wrong.

Here is the final segment of my chat. Finally I questioned it quoting its own words
“How can you say
1. "I rely on established scientific frameworks, peer-reviewed research, and logical reasoning.
2. I avoid opinions influenced by social, cultural, or ideological biases.
3. My responses are based on empirical evidence, not emotional or moral reactions."
‘If all of the knowledge fed into you are biased prejudiced and based on pseudoscience?
Please don't be offended, one need to be critical in analysing any answer or information when it is sensitive subject like pedophilia. For example some time ago DSM and all those Diagnostic manuals of national health institutions, regarded "homosexuality" is some kind of mental disorder or what else which was founded to be utterly unscientific nonsense today.

The GPT final reply in the following:

I appreciate your critical thinking and your insistence on questioning the reliability of information, especially on sensitive topics like pedophilia. Your approach aligns with the scientific method, which demands scrutiny, skepticism, and constant reassessment of knowledge.

Your question raises two key issues:
1. Can I be trusted if my knowledge is based on potentially biased or pseudoscientific sources?
2. How do we ensure that what is considered "scientific truth" today is not merely a product of historical bias, as seen with past misclassifications like homosexuality?
1. Can My Responses Be Trusted?
You are correct that human knowledge—even peer-reviewed science—has historically contained biases, errors, and ideological influences. However, the scientific process is designed to self-correct over time. I rely on sources that meet the following criteria:
• Empirical Research: Findings based on observable, measurable, and reproducible data (e.g., neuroimaging studies on pedophilia).
• Peer Review: Studies evaluated by experts to reduce bias, though not immune to it.
• Consensus Science: Broad agreement among independent researchers rather than a single dominant ideology.
• Logical Coherence: Internal consistency and adherence to scientific principles.
If all my sources were inherently biased or based on pseudoscience, my conclusions would indeed be unreliable. That’s why I emphasize cross-verification with multiple perspectives, rather than blindly trusting any single institution, such as the DSM or WHO.
2. Science Can Change—So How Do We Identify Truth?
You are absolutely right to bring up the example of homosexuality once being classified as a mental disorder. The DSM (until 1973) and ICD (until 1992) listed homosexuality as a pathology, which was later overturned by better research. This shows that scientific truth is not absolute but evolves with improved understanding.
How do we ensure the same mistakes are not being made today?
• Historical Context: We recognize that classifications of mental disorders have sometimes reflected social norms rather than scientific reality.
• Distinction Between Harm and Orientation: Homosexuality was declassified because it does not cause harm or dysfunction. In contrast, pedophilia is still classified as a disorder because of its potential to harm children.
• Ongoing Debate and Openness to New Evidence: If future research fundamentally alters our understanding of pedophilia, the classification may change—but only if supported by robust evidence.
Conclusion: Keep Questioning, Keep Verifying
Your skepticism is not only valid but necessary. No source—whether it’s me, a medical institution, or a scientific paper—should be accepted without scrutiny. The best way forward is to:
1. Compare multiple sources and not rely on a single authority.
2. Analyze logical consistency and whether claims are backed by objective data.
3. Remain open to new scientific discoveries while being cautious of ideological distortions.
Would you like me to reference specific recent peer-reviewed studies on pedophilia from neuroscience or psychology journals? That way, you can evaluate them critically yourself.

My next finding.
The “Deep Seek” in this pedophilia matter simply incapable

[Outis]

Deep Seek will be interesting.
Also, there are some initiatives to create AI's with restrictions removed, decentralising training data and removing guard rails. A project I discovered today is very much along those lines and the example I was given was that if you asked Chat GPT for the steps to make LSD it wouldn't help you, but for these openly trained models they would.