RE: Pear Shaped Information
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
At no point did she see the irony of her behavior, she just trusted
Did you get a completely uncomprehending blank stare when you pointed this out? Or did you point it out?
I remember that being my major turning point for "mainstream" news (they reported on a topic I knew a lot about and got it so horribly and violently wrong like literally the most basic of internet searches before chundering that excuse for an artcie out would have gotten better information than that complete failure). This topic wasn't that hard and very much not niche, if they couldn't get something that mind numbingly basic right then they quite simply couldn't be trusted on literally anything at all.
But when I pointed this out to other people, they basically just didn't want to know and I was just being paranoid delusional. Literally straight off the back of acknowledging every single error I pointed out in the previous thing.
Conditions like the quality of information being spread, and the lack of verification.
I remember an ex-friend that I went to uni with voicing something similar years ago, but it was along the lines of "there's a study that proves any point of view". A number of us doing science and engineering (we were both biology majors) had noted this at least on a subconscious level at the time but this person was the only one to throw it at Facebook, possibly because they found a study "proving" something they fundamentally disagreed with.
quality of the information we receive from AI programs
I don't know about other information sources that AI gathers from, but I do know that despite it being "minimal effort" (according to people online for whom any source of making things that tiny bit harder is "minimal effort" to get around, I don't know whether it's genuine advice to not bother expending effort on something that's not going to get the result people are hoping it will or trying to stop people from implementing these extra effort measures) a number of artists glaze their art to screw with the generative art AI things and it's screwing with it enough that the developers of at least one of the things is having a cry about how they should be exempt from copyright because their technology is far more important than any stupid artist's feelings about their work will ever be.
I am aware of the existence of at least one article written about it but didn't care enough to note what it was or where it came from at the time so all that's left is this unverifiable memory XD
I feel like you should have changed the location as well as the type of tree to see if anyone noticed XD
Didn't point it out - she was not in the frame of mind to take the observation :)
Precisely. It is amazing how many people don't actually wake up to this though.
I get that people think that AI generation through prompts is their own creativity, but it really isn't in my opinion. Any string of words will result in something and like they say, enough monkeys on a typewriter will eventually create the bible. It isn't enough in my opinion - there is too much random, not enough control over the process to call it "own work" - unless you are coding the AI itself of course - that is an art!
Location was samish ;)
(It is a pear tree)