Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie66
It's so easy to throw shade. How about explaining specifically what you saw in his post that was objectionable or false?
|
That was a very, very long post. To explain specifically what, if anything, was incorrect would require knowing details of the situation that have either not been made public or are difficult to understand.
What I am concerned about is using AI as an authoritative source. AI doesn't think, AI regurgitates and amplifies. AI doesn't analyze multiple sources to determine what the truth is, AI generates words that are consistent with the sources it has ingested. If the data it has ingested is accurate then the words it generates have a good chance of being accurate. If the data it has ingested is inaccurate, incomplete, or just speculation then the words it generates will be inaccurate, incomplete, or just plain wrong (garbage in, garbage out).
AI also amplifies. It puts words together into meaningful sentences that answer a question. If details are missing or if it needs an example it will create sentences to add those. The additional sentences will be on topic and will look correct but they are amplification of the sources, not the results of critical thinking. As has been seen in reporting on some AI-generated court filings and research papers, the AI output can be pure hallucination.
As a starting point for follow-on, in-depth research, an AI-generated post is great.
As an assertion to be taken as fact, an AI-generated post is concerning.