Search results

He didn’t invent the term “comet-like object”. While I don’t personally know its origin, a quick google search shows the term being used in NASA releases going back years. It appears to be a perfectly commonplace term.

I’m sure that if the game had feelings we could ask whether it felt insulted. But this is just you manufacturing insult where there is none. You are not the subject of the comment; an inanimate object is. Manufactured outrage is annoying. Stop it, please.

You just said the same thing twice. "Roles" and "workers" are the same things.

So? Read it or don’t, but I’m not engaging with somebody commenting based solely on a headline. It’s a waste of my time and a waste of your time.

Read the thread. I’m past people writing essays based solely on a headline at this point.

Eh? The contest went to the end and a winner announced. Pretty sure they're all on YouTube still.

Somebody beat you to the joke!

Livestreaming as always today at 2pm UK time (9am Eastern)! We'll be talking about the Gygax Memorial Table, the second part of How Much D&D Stuff Is There Anyway?, D&D video games studios opening and closing, the new Psion playtest update, Fabula Ultima's million-dollar Kickstarter, and more...

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.