layla💋

"why can't they afford to spend on alcohol every weekend like we did"

im NOT listening to no rap or rnb by a yt woman i never cared

Did I could’ve bought a new lipgloss

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

Oh so black people having bad socioeconomic situations in America due to systemic racism is "cope" but this isn't?

To review: Morgan State, and HBCU has a higher NCLEX pass rate than JOHNS HOPKINS. But DEI…

The fact that the Israel lobby has spent $35M to unseat a congressman from Kentucky should tell you exactly who is truly running the country.

Black girls are soooo smart

nature boy is a new york manipulator that went international omg

The Black Southern Gothic + Twins 🖤

Again… this right here is what your tithes and offerings should be used for.

living alone is so peaceful if i wanna eat a lava cake to take my meds i can and i dont gotta hear nothing

me when I use my money to survive and not to spoil myself with shopping

One of the things I continue to find remarkable in this debate is how many people look at Black students scoring in the 95th percentile on the MCAT — often higher than the average matriculant at most American medical schools — and still conclude they were admitted “only because of race.” These are objectively elite academic performers. Many scored higher than applicants admitted to excellent medical schools across the country. And yet some people persist in speaking as though the mere existence of Black students at Yale is proof that standards collapsed and that unnamed “more deserving” Asian applicants were robbed. At that point, the conversation is no longer about MCAT scores. It is about an inability to imagine that highly accomplished Black students belong in elite institutions. What also fascinates me is how quickly social media pundits become absolute authorities on physician selection, while dismissing the judgment of admissions committees at institutions that have spent generations training world-class physicians and scientists. Medicine is harder — and more human — than sorting percentiles on a spreadsheet.

I understand why many Asian families feel frustrated in elite admissions systems. In intensely competitive environments, there is a real perception — and sometimes evidence — that exceptional academic performance still does not guarantee admission. That feeling should not be dismissed. But admissions committees also confront another reality: if you have 100 applicants from privileged, high-performing educational pipelines with nearly identical scores, resumes, research access, tutoring, and opportunities, it is not irrational to also value the applicant who achieved similar academic success despite poverty, instability, underfunded schools, family hardship, or lack of institutional advantages. That is not abandoning merit. It is recognizing that achievement exists in context. And medicine especially is not merely selecting expert test takers. It is selecting future physicians who will care for human beings across every class, culture, language, and circumstance in society. The irony is that many people who defend “objective merit” often become deeply uncomfortable the moment merit is evaluated in anything broader than a percentile ranking.

A certain subset of Black folks are going to hate #isgodis because it has some very familiar villains including the person who helps the abuser build the facade of loving husband and father and the church that welcomes the abuser with open arms and zero demand for accountability

a lot harder to brainwash people when everyone has access to all the footage and news of you slaughtering innocent children like animals you rotten fuck

Black men who want to pretend patriarchal violence doesn't exist in our community are just like White people who want to pretend Racism doesn't exist in the white community.

Yall think Drake’s word play is so sophisticated because most of yall read below grade level. 😂