>Fact check with more interesting info: https://chatgpt.com/share/684eef92-a604-8010-94aa-07200edb4b...
An AI conversation is hardly a "fact check".
An AI conversation is hardly a "fact check".
Replying (trolling?) in the lines of just "lol AI stupid" isn't helpful or aiming towards anyone being better informed.
As it seems your reply is the thing that is low quality, I assume you didn't even check the link and that it has citations.
I don't like ChatGPT's biases in many things either but being that hard against it while it cites Reuters etc isn't really sensical.
Not cool and not a way to treat your peers.
You're talking of "slop" and "overwhelming conversation" while I added a reasonably useful objectivity-based review on something I could easily write from memory. My message, both in being written in an informed sense, and having had it reviewed is quite high above an average comment in effort and reasons it couldn't just be made up.
And you try to bring that down. Go look in the mirror and ask yourself if your motivations are pure.
ChatGPT may be a good tool for you to find information to discuss here, but it is not a good tool to replace discussion here.
I reason that this is because: Including it in your message is implicitly asking others to read it; all people are equal; asking an equal to do something you can do, but aren't willing to do, is sometimes considered rude.
If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources. Why not do that? That way, everybody wins :)
No. The same way people can implicitly trust things measured in specific ways, people know in what AI's are good at. If they include a ton of references from good domains, in a casual context that is already quite strong. Let's not pretend we're working with weapons technology or something lol :)