Search results

Correct. Correct.

This is not new information. Ad hominem, sadly, still works. Fortunately, this thread has pretty much demolished your credibility, too. There’s some irony there, and not in an Alanis Morissette way. Now perhaps we can get back to talking about the actual issue being highlighted and stop...

Yes, you are cleverer than everybody, and all those stupid people who don't know as much about AI as you deserve what they get. I mean, seriously, what is your message here? My grandma should know better? And this journalist is a wrong'un for telling her? Jeez, man.

I'm glad you agree. That's what this video says.

Wow. You attacked the reporter's credibility and dismissed his report, despite not watching it... because you didn't like the conclusion you imagined he had made? And doubled down when challenged, still not having watched it? So? Who cares whether you are surprised by it? What does that have to...

He's kissing roses while standing on aliens? Now that's even weirder than kissing roses on graves.

No, no, no. Read it again. Or watch it again. Or both.

Not so much deep as incomprehensible. Seal's Kiss from a Rose. I spent decades thinking it was "kiss from a rose on a grave" and while I thought kissing roses on graves was weird, at least the concept of kissing a rose on a grave was grammatically viable. But then I found out it was "kiss from...

I mean, he wasn't surprised. He probably didn't even write the script for the segment. He's a presenter presenting content.

To clean up a podcast transcription? Or to make an informational video about the unreliability of AI? Which decision is questionable? That's not what he did, though, is it? But even if he had--so what? It's a warning to people to do precisely not that. You know like those ads which used to...

You did. You attacked the credibility of the journalist (ad hominem). But you know that. And in answer to your question--why would somebody use ChatGPT to clean up a podcast transcription? Why wouldn't they? Though maybe they won't after seeing that information.

Attacking journalists for telling you things you don't want to hear says, in your own words, more about the people who are doing that than it says about the information being presented. I know we're in a post-truth world where journalists are constantly attacked for presenting unpopular...

I also think, though, that there is an opportunity for human-created content to stand out from the slop. People will seek that out, and seek out the creators/brands that they trust. That 'real content' will have value just for being 'real'. But we (creators) have to make sure we are better than...

What an odd reply. "What is the average salary in Europe?" Well I know my salary, but that's not really the question being asked, is it? That's of no use to anyone. Of course we all know our own salary. Or what happens in our own games.

Of course he understood it. He was making an informative video to warn users about the nature of AI outputs. People on the news aren't surprised by the news. They know in advance what they're going to say. Man, there's a lot of weird shooting the messenger vibes going on in this thread.

It's not a philosophical question. "Can AI lie?" is just shorthand for "Can AI output false information?" The answer is yes, and banging on about the word 'lie' is just a distraction--bordering on misdirection--from the actual conversation, and the purpose of the video--to alert users to this...

A snake eating its own tail. It won't have much choice once all the human creators have been driven out.

I'll leave you to attack the journalist. Knock yourself out. I'm here to talk about the AI slop.

It was also posted 8 years ago.

Please do not attempt to circumvent the profanity filter.