FaceDeer

And that’s when ICE will go “see? We need to be more heavily armed.”

And we’re allowed to point out how terrible they are for decision-making, or how unrepresentative of underlying statistical results they are.

Indeed. Biggest growth industry in existence right now, and the US wants to say “no thanks” to it? By all means, hand it to us.

I just hope that there isn’t a similar surge of popular self-sabotage in Canada, there are much less trustworthy places the data centers will be built instead.

Unfortunately not before he did the bear and the peacock.

Or rather before he named the bear and the peacock. Need to be careful with words when that guy’s involved.

And yet I don’t see any of that. Lots of people complain about “the algorithm” but it seems to be working well for me.

https://i.imgur.com/wXWAnW3.png

I mean, it’s pretty obvious. They release good open-weight models. Western companies did that a little at first, but they’ve basically stopped doing that any more. It’s really easy to win a competition when one of the competitors isn’t actually competing.

If the art doesn’t look good by whatever standards you have, then it doesn’t look good. Whether it’s not-good AI-generated or not-good human-generated doesn’t matter.

Just look at the picture, and if you like it then like it. This moral panic about Abominable Intelligence’s supposedly soulless touch is pointless.

I don’t self-inflict it on myself, because when I see a piece of art that looks really neat I go “ooh, that looks really neat” rather than “wait, I need to dig around to find out whether I’m supposed to like this or not.”

People have to actively choose to make themselves miserable in the way this comic depicts. That’s what I mean when I say it’s self-inflicted.

It’s self-inflicted.

Ah, good, that makes this less of a dilemma then.

On the one hand not fond of the CCP, and this is a step toward making Taiwan more “safely” invadeable.

On the other hand not fond of the United States throwing its weight around like it’s in charge of the world and not fond of monopolies in general.

So hard to settle on a reaction for this.

I do, however, enjoy it when various flavors of Nazi fight each other.

So, who’s going to prison for this? Party of law and order, right?

Vigilantism is a symptom of a failed justice system. I’d give good odds on this.

Right, you take the article at face value. So exactly as I originally said:

you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.

For every news article you read?

That’s the point here. AI can allow for tedious tasks to be automated. I could have a button in my browser that, when clicked, tells the AI to follow up on those sources to confirm that they say what the article says they say. It can highlight the ones that don’t. It can add notes mentioning if those sources happen to be inherently questionable - environmental projections from a fossil fuel think tank, for example. It can highlight claims that don’t have a source, and can do a web search to try to find them.

These are all things I can do myself by hand, sure. I do that sometimes when an article seems particularly important or questionable. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. I would much rather have an AI do the grunt work of going through all that and highlighting problem areas for me to potentially check up on myself. Even if it makes mistakes sometimes that’s still going to give me a far more thoroughly checked and vetted view of the news than the existing process.

Did you look at the link I gave you about how this sort of automated fact-checking has worked out on Wikipedia? Or was it too much hassle to follow the link manually, read through it, and verify whether it actually supported or detracted from my argument?

Okay, we’ve established how you don’t do it. So how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

Okay, so how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

Source for what?