Recent content by Justice and Rule

If you want to be facetious, you should probably make it sound less like you normally do. Then these sorts of mistakes wouldn't happen. :unsure:

It's not bizarre, it's just fandom. Look at Web3.0 advocates, NFT pushers, or Zack Snyder evangelists. I don't think anyone think it's weird because we've deal with this sort of thing since forever.

Honestly, a lot of it reminds me of the blockchain and NFT arguments from several years back.

I'm glad that you can smooth fundamental differences like that for the purposes of your argument, but ultimately I don't find it particularly compelling. It is too big a gap to say that "There are problems with both" without acknowledging what the problems are and why the are fundamentally...

Depending on the topic area, fairly accurate. The study here goes pretty in-depth, those it can vary; in this case, they split up "accuracy" with "completeness", and gave it rather high marks for accuracy (99.7%) and okay marks for completeness (83%). Now that's one field, but I'd say that's...

Yeah, but those problems aren't similar, and saying "scare users" belies your own bias: you are not interested in how they are different, but only in the similarity that people call them "untrustworthy". Your argument ignores why they are untrustworthy, how these problems come about, and how...

This is a massive overgeneralization of what we are talking about. Saying "Nothing is ever 100% accurate!" doesn't suddenly close the gap between the problems with Wikipedia and the problems with LLMs, nor does it negate the inability for LLMs to solve said problem. In fact, it fundamentally...

Well, it's a false comparison: "false edits" are a problem, but they are a problem that can be mitigated by human processes, in the same way we can create processes through our own discernment to mitigate things like misinformation. Wikipedia does this: it can revert bad edits (and has a habit...

I mean, as a guy who has a degree in political science, he wasn't wrong. We're just sort of living in the failure of that sort of gatekeeping. And that's all I'll say on that to avoid becoming more political. I'm not sure that's really what @pawsplay is saying as people come to the fore as...

I mean, I myself am trying to find it, but like... what network were they affiliated with? NPR? CBS? ABC? Did you get an author/host name out of it? Any name? Just really interested in the piece, because I've seen a lot on the opposite: AI largely being used to do stuff like aggressively markup...

Uh, what network was this on? I'd love to actually see the data on this.

I said "y'all" as a reference to multiple people. And while never accused you of putting it through an AI, you went along with its bad response. You can say "independent conclusion", but seems weird that you and the AI somehow managed to reach the same weird, limited conclusion. You can say...

It's not really thin; in fact, there's plenty of evidence of our Founders talking about it or considering it. But Wheaton v. Peters made it something that, unless someone has a real interest in overturning it or correcting it via a bill in Congress, a thought-exercise for most. This is also...

The pushback was simply because y'all were looking to discredit the piece without understanding it. Like, what do you think you'd get for putting it through Claude and saying "Well, it feels like this footnote here kind of destroys the whole argument" without actually knowing the purpose of the...