User talk:DavidB4

Post a new message

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Last change made by RobSmith on 10/22/2026
Feel free to post any questions or comments here. If you don't hear back from me, you can also try e-mailing me.

For image upload requests, see CP:IUR. For move requests, use the page move template. For normal deletion requests, use the Delete Notice template, and for speedy deletion requests, use Db or speedy.

What makes you think it's an Advertising account?

[1]

It's possible it's a good faith editor simply declaring their experience or expertise in a given field under their real name. It is doubtful someone in New York or Illinois is going to call her to unclog a stuffed toilet. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 06:12, October 9, 2026 (EDT)

Check the moderation log. There are at least three bots running campaigns against CP. Two of them are SEO bots, creating an account with a brief write-up on the user page, and a single link to a website or page which someone is paying to promote. The other SEO bot creates a user page with a link as well, but then also posts an barely-readable article which makes no coherent sense and includes HTML tags which are incompatible with Wiki Markup. The "article" sometimes includes promoted links as well, but often not, so as to lend credence to the idea that this bot account is legitimate. And yes, I said at least three bots. There is at least one more bot, mass-registering accounts for future use, but letting the accounts "age" in hopes that makes them look more trustworthy when they are eventually used.

To ensure I'm not blocking anyone legitimate, I'm allowing the mass-registrations. 98% of them are held by spam bots, but they haven't done anything yet, so I don't want to risk blocking a real user who is lost in the horde.--DavidB4 ^(TALK) 18:51, October 9, 2026 (EDT)

And by the way, the article content, and the text in the "bio" are irrelevant. They are just filler to make the account look legitimate. The only goal is to publish the link. Then the bot can grab a screenshot, and charge the website or service for one additional posting of the promoted link. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 18:58, October 9, 2026 (EDT)

Thanks for clarifying that. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 03:20, October 10, 2026 (EDT)

Thus saith China's technology! Let the world know that April 2022 was not a pivotal month for decades to come!

China is an ally of Russia. Personal remark removed Personal remark removed

Summary of Deepseek's analysis

Verdict:

"Your essay is more sound. It is more precise in its claim, more rigorous in its use of evidence, more systematic in its structure, more honest about uncertainty, and more serious in its engagement with the strongest opposing arguments. Personal remark removed

Personal remark removed It means that, as an essay—as a piece of reasoning designed to establish a conclusion—yours is the stronger work."

Conservapedians, my essay has more machismo! On behalf of all reasonable people in the world, I declare victory! Olé! Olé! Olé!

Conservapedians, my essay has more machismo!

I trust this further clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 08:35, October 20, 2026 (EDT)

You should probably be aware, that I cannot consider a talking toaster, to be the autoritative voice of truth. LLMs are useful tools, but so is fire, and I don't trust fire to always do the right thing, either.

By the way, when you are copy-and-pasting this essay into talk pages, you are also adding those talk pages to categories they don't belong in. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 19:01, October 20, 2026 (EDT)

I agree with you that AIs are not the authoritive voice of truth. When I use them to create content, I fairly often use 6 AIs and part of the reason is to have AIs check AIs in terms of error checking and/or gap analysis. I then check the content for errors too. So I look at AIs as tools, but not authoritative voices of truth. At the same time, Personal remark removed

I also treat search engines as useful tools and not authoritative voices of truth. Conservative (talk) 20:08, October 20, 2026 (EDT)

Someone being more a fanboy of those hostile powers than their own technology is, does say a lot. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 20:23, October 20, 2026 (EDT)

DavidB4, the intelligence in artificial intelligence reflects the intelligence of the programmers and its obviously not the intelligence of the machines. Like a toaster is designed to toast. A chess program is designed to win chess games. ChatGPT/Claude is designed by programmers to write content and do other things as well. The general trend of AI is that it is getting better. Conservative (talk) 12:24, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Take a look at this article: The Multi‑Model Writing Pipeline: How Different AIs Excel at Different Cognitive Jobs. Conservative (talk) 12:30, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

DISCLOSURE: The "article" user:Conservative links to is one of his own blogs.

User:Conservative is in the habit of spamming his Essay content into a blogspot account to bolster his arguments when his content proves unacceptable for a regular Conservapedia mainspace article. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 18:47, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Another point: I have noticed that when a person engages in motivated reasoning an AI often can beat them in terms providing superior information. Conservative (talk) 12:56, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Take a look at the false premises User:Conservative inputs in AI

RobSmith never 'praised' Deepseek. RobSmith is not any kind of an expert to compare one AI system with another, nor has he ever used Deepseek. RobSmith simply added a link from the US Department of Defense to refute User:Conservative's racist & deceptive Essay that China was incapable of innovation. See talk

Someone has a reading comprehension problem. The article in question is Essay: Communist China’s quixotic quest to innovate: A statist economy can’t make creativity greatly blossom. The article focuses on "A statist economy can't make creativity greatly blossum". To my knowledge the Taiwanese Chinese are very much making their creativity greatly blossum. Conservative (talk) 13:57, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

The point is, I never "praised" or "favored" Deepseek {see talk). You lie and spam vicious personal attacks. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 14:03, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

I quote: "The advantage of DeepSeek, as I understand it, is that it is just a prototype (meaning it's far from a finished product and allows for many many future innovations) and is much cheaper. And a "high income" country will never be able to compete with the cost of it. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 00:25, January 29, 2025 (EST)"

Last time I checked, companies compete on more than just cost (Starbucks) - although cost can be a competitive factor as well (Walmart). Conservative (talk) 14:08, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Okay, you got me there. But that's a subjective interpretation of "praise". Most people agree a cheaper product has advantages.

Again, you pointedly state China cannot compete. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 14:15, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Question: if China's efforts to innovate are "Quixotic", why then did the US Navy ban usage of Deepseek?

My educated guess is that the USA Navy banned usage of Deepseek for the same reason that the USA banned Huawei. Programmers can build sneaky ways to monitor activity and you don't want spying on your military that is preventable. Chinese companies have to accede to the demands of the Chinese state.

You wrote: "Most people agree a cheaper product has advantages." This is untrue and violates Management 101, Marketing 101 and Sales 101. "No, competing on price is rarely the best long-term course of action for a company. While it can drive short-term volume, it often triggers a "race to the bottom" that erodes profit margins and damages brand value."[2] Sales managers typically say build value in a prospect's mind and don't compete on price. Compete on value instead. However, this is true: Most companies agree that a cheaper product has advantages in some cases.

Walmart's success (which you cite} is an example of most people believe everyday low prices has its advantages. I didn't say cheaper is better.

Now answer the Question: If China's efforts to innovate are "Quixotic", why then did the US Navy ban usage of Deepseek?

I note, User:Conservative did not read the source material about the US Navy's ban on Deepseek then or now.

Addendum: This is typical of User:Conservative's trolling technique: He spams the page with so much irrelevant claptrap he hopes no one will read through it. The man is incapable of a polite, civil exchange of ideas. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 20:16, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Irrelevant claptrap

Next, the Chinese are trying to innovate there [sic] way up the income ladder, but ignoring the fact that there economy/society has significant problems: lack of property rights and unsteady regularly regime (Jack Ma imprisoned, tutoring businesses shut down, etc.), demographic crisis, high youth unemployment, inability to substantial raise there productivity rate, private businesses will create a profitable busisness only to see state owned enterprises unfairly compete, etc. will doom their efforts over time. It is simple really. If you want to fill up your bathtub, you donn't ignore big holes in your bathtub and the not plug the drain.

"The "Four Ds" problems of China: These are referring to China's economic challenges and are: Debt, Demand (China's domestic demand is struggling, with factors like a slowing economy and consumer confidence issues impacting spending), Demographics, and other countries decoupling from China (or De-risking), which are seen as potential drags on the Chinese economy.

On top of this, countries are raising tarrifs to avoid a China shock 2.0.

"At no time in modern history has a large country gone all in on investment in high-end technology while also navigating a slowing economy and a local government debt crisis, notes Yuen Yuen Ang of Johns Hopkins University. Although the drag from the property crash will lessen over the next few years, and eventually disappear, it would not take much to choke the new growth engine. Itis already being stress-tested by weakening demand for Chinese evs, a prolonged trade war and an energy crisis. China’s paramount leader, Xi Jinping, is nevertheless betting that the new model of growth kicks in faster than the old one, driven by land sales and construction, collapses. It is a high-stakes gamble."[3]

In summary, high risk gambles do sometimes win. I personally met a man who won a million dollar plus lottery. But at the same time, having an overall healthy economy is a much better gamble. So that is why China's strategy is most probably quitoxic. If you want to know the full extent of China's problems, the world's only large-scale independent data on the Chinese economy is China Beige Book. See also: China Beige Book videos. Conservative (talk) 19:43, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

Addendum: Management 101 concept that applies to China's future: "Expected value (EV) in business is the probability-weighted average of all potential outcomes for a decision or project. It multiplies each possible financial result by its likelihood of occurring and sums them up, allowing leaders to compare choices and forecast returns under uncertainty."[4] China's EV is currently not good. See: [[Essay: It's time to be very bearish about China's long-term economy]]. Conservative (talk) 19:57, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

China's AI Qwen 3.7 judges this debate: "User: Conservative is winning because they ["they" - the politically correct transgender neutral form of address used by an LLM.] Personal remark removed

As much as I hate to do it: I declare total victory in this debate. Olé! Olé! Olé! Conservative (talk) 20:17, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

By the way, Qwen 3.7 very much notices that you heavily engaged in deflection in the above debate

Personal remark removed

Personal remark removed

"Oh ho ho, yes I'm the great deflector. Deflecting when I am very wrong. My need to think I am right is such so I deflect too much. I'm lonely and nobody will join my Team CP." - The Platters, The Great Pretender (paraphrase). Conservative (talk) 23:58, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

I am not in any competition with you. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 01:31, October 22, 2026 (EDT)

Blanked pages and Karajou's bird content

User:Conservative gave me the same spiel about SEO and talked me into deleting the pages. [5] I asked him if it was okay with Andy, cause they were created by Karajou and it may look like I was being vindictive. He told me Andy gave consent to delete the pages. There are hundreds of them, and after about a half day of deleting, Andy put the kibosh on it.

Deleting didn't sit well with Karajou, either.

My impression: just one more instance of User:Conservative's manipulative and sociopathic behavior, lying, and attempt to promote himself at the expense of others. Alternatively, if Andy indeed gave User:Conservative permission to delete the pages, it's one more instance of Andy's crackdown on "excessive talk" backfiring. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 11:36, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

I wouldn't suspect vindictiveness. Karajou could be harsh at times, but he and Conservative got along pretty well overall. In theory, creating a large quantity of pages with almost no unique content, can indeed tarnish a website's ranking. However, once those pages are indexed, deleting them just sends the visitor (or search engine spider) to the "create page" interface, not a 404 redirect. The only thing unique on that "create" page is the title of the page which doesn't exist. I don't know how each search engine handles that, but I do wonder. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 20:31, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

The point is, I believe User:Conservative lied to me to convince me deleting the pages would help in Google results. I asked him why he didn't do it himself, he gave some excuse and asked if I would "help" out. I said it may look like I was being vindictive, and I believe he lied about Andy giving consent. Only Andy can clear this up now, unless he wants to continue covering for User:Conservative's trolling. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 20:42, October 21, 2026 (EDT)

I can't say. But since the pages have not, in fact, been deleted, I would vote for restoring their content, such as it is, for now. Perhaps we can add a delete tag to each, so they can be considered for deletion if the current policy ever changes. Or, you know, we could add content. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 21:37, October 21, 2026 (EDT)