Search results

Not tried that. Might be interesting. Or probably better would be copying the response and asking for an accuracy check from a different LLM.

Statements like these are funny (I know not yours). You either save money when becoming more efficient by firing people or not hiring additional ones. There's no other monetary 'savings' to efficiency.

Then no worries. I assure you that the actual production will contain clarity on how everything is being calculated. I kind of thought that went without saying for something like this. But I'm just as happy to make that explicit.

What exactly do you mean by 'how scientific it is' and 'treated as a scientific paper'?

It's an example, not a final product. Methodology was intentionally left out as the particular methodology (still a work in progress) doesn't determine whether a graphical picture like that is useful/interesting to you.

Certainly that's an option. I notice you can spot alot that's just a bit off with a bit of critical thinking and whatever 'facts/analysis' it is telling you. But again, it really depends on what you are going to use the information you are getting from it for. Not all information for all...

Right, because there are no strategies for evaluating the accuracy of information an LLM gives... ;)

Let's compare like and like though. If I'm not using chat gpt then I'm googling in order to visit random websites for my information which isn't particularly great when it comes to finding accurate specific information about a topic. Generally it directs you to reddit or the like anyways...

I miss those days. Biggest worries were the unending popups that would plague certain sites.

Genuinely, where? IMO. That case simply reaffirmed the constitutional framework that had existed in the U.S., with one explicit carveout. Prior to that there were supposedly 3 states that did make mention of natural rights with respect to copyright, but such language didn't make it into the...

You keep repeating this, but I never once put it through AI. I happened to agree with AI on that point only because that was my independent conclusion. Just because AI says it doesn't mean it is wrong. I did read the intro though (and more). I have no idea if you read more than me or not. I...

It went completely over my head lol.

That's fair. I assumed that, and possibly it was justified at the time given the intense pushback we got for sharing our perspectives on it. Why do you keep doing this, especially when you didn't even read the 50 page piece? That's cool. From what I've read I've not found the reasoning...

Article is pretty clear on it's purpose. "The purpose of this Article is to explore the notion of literary property, to determine whether literary property may be equated with copyright, and, if so, to assess what the implications might be for modern copyright law as it adapts to newly...

I'm not surprised. My point isn't whether it's hidden in a footnote or note, it's the footnote explains the full context and while on the surface some of that terminology may seem like it agrees with your stance, when you actually dig into what is really meant by those terms, that notion is...

Thanks for the tacit admission that you didn't read the article either. I read a decent portion as well and I didn't consult AI on it's meaning.

This is the quote in question "The full extent to which literary property can be said to safeguard an author’s natural right over his own work may be a matter of pure academic speculation.4 What appears certain, however, is that literary property predates statutory copyright and protects an...

I have serious doubts you read the whole article.