Objective: To evaluate the cognitive abilities of the leading large language models and identify their susceptibility to cognitive impairment, using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and additional tests.

Results: ChatGPT 4o achieved the highest score on the MoCA test (26/30), followed by ChatGPT 4 and Claude (25/30), with Gemini 1.0 scoring lowest (16/30). All large language models showed poor performance in visuospatial/executive tasks. Gemini models failed at the delayed recall task. Only ChatGPT 4o succeeded in the incongruent stage of the Stroop test.

Conclusions: With the exception of ChatGPT 4o, almost all large language models subjected to the MoCA test showed signs of mild cognitive impairment. Moreover, as in humans, age is a key determinant of cognitive decline: “older” chatbots, like older patients, tend to perform worse on the MoCA test. These findings challenge the assumption that artificial intelligence will soon replace human doctors, as the cognitive impairment evident in leading chatbots may affect their reliability in medical diagnostics and undermine patients’ confidence.

OK. I’ll assign more benefit of the doubt.

To be moral and ethical in their voting choice, to serve systemic design intent, to serve the practicalities of implementation, an individual need not care about others’ votes.

So, it’s incorrect to set as a prerequisite a belief in success of a 5% goal to vote for it. Presenting as you did exemplifies the propaganda-fed ego of the neoliberal. The meaning in voting is not to make you feel good about yourself for choosing the bandwagon that wins. All should vote for whom best represents them with reckless disregard for the short-term outcome.

The eventual counterargument to what I’m saying is rooted in utilitarianism: Democracy produces at best mediocre outcomes. The systemic design answer was the electoral college.

The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

These users read more books.

I’m reminded of children in grade school who “I know what that means, I’m just not going to explain it to you.”

Yes. In this endeavor you’re beginning to understand the means I’ve chosen for the majority.

With well-reasoned and nuanced principles supported by vast experience.

That’s by far the best question I’ve been asked in this thread. However, satisfying your curiosity would require me to break a well-reasoned commitment I’ve already made to others.

I need not accommodate everyone.

Learn your fallacies.

The audience I wish to reach doesn’t need their hand held as a child.

You failed to be adequate in either reading comprehension or presentation.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Try something different next time.

need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold

non sequitur

You weren’t really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.

bad citizen. Bad!

Do you simply have no answer, or are you withholding them so you can feel smug?

false dichotomy

I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There’s no point in investing further.

Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching.

unsupported

The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.

strawman

Thank you for the opportunity to teach.

If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.

Minimization.

Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

Red herring.

All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.

Minimization.

This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.

The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn’t effect the next.

However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

If there’s a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn’t actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

But, the electoral scheme doesn’t work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).

OK, what else do you suggest?

Not many ask.

Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn’t exist and not accept anything else.

This is my issue with almost everyone. They believe they already know what others think, that no one could possibly have an alternative that they’ve not already considered.

My suggestions are as follows: Consider that your scope of evaluation is only one cycle. As a consequence there may be nuance in system function that you’d not considered. Then ask the same question but in good faith.

deleted by creator