brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agoNo AI* Here - A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter - Waterfox Blogwww.waterfox.comexternal-linkmessage-square122linkfedilinkarrow-up1600cross-posted to: privacy@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1600external-linkNo AI* Here - A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter - Waterfox Blogwww.waterfox.combrianpeiris@lemmy.ca to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square122linkfedilinkcross-posted to: privacy@lemmy.ml
minus-squareMac@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up28·5 days agoYou sure are relying on the accuracy of the misinformation machine.
minus-squareFaceDeer@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up7·5 days agoAnd you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever. Here’s an example of how AI fact checking can find errors in even extremely well-curated data sources.
minus-squareMac@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-25 days ago?? You’re specifically making claims about me in your comment. “Source?” for those claims. Maybe you’ve become so reliant on AI you cant read and understand comments anymore? Put this exchange into ChatGPT and have it explain for you.
minus-squareFaceDeer@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up4·5 days agoOkay, so how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?
minus-squareMac@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·edit-25 days agoYou’re never going to believe this: i can take an article at face value because it’s not being routed through a slop generator when i read it. Whether or not a source can be believed to be true is not within the scope of this thread.
minus-squareFaceDeer@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up4·5 days agoRight, 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.
minus-squareMac@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoThat’s the opposite of what I said. I’m afraid you’ve given your ability to infer language to AI and therefore there is nothing more to say here. Have a nice day.
minus-squareasudox@lemmy.asudox.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·5 days agocertainly not by using llms, that’s for sure
minus-squareFaceDeer@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up3·5 days agoOkay, 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?
You sure are relying on the accuracy of the misinformation machine.
And you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.
Here’s an example of how AI fact checking can find errors in even extremely well-curated data sources.
Source?
Source for what?
??
You’re specifically making claims about me in your comment. “Source?” for those claims.
Maybe you’ve become so reliant on AI you cant read and understand comments anymore? Put this exchange into ChatGPT and have it explain for you.
Okay, so how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?
You’re never going to believe this: i can take an article at face value because it’s not being routed through a slop generator when i read it.
Whether or not a source can be believed to be true is not within the scope of this thread.
Right, you take the article at face value. So exactly as I originally said:
That’s the opposite of what I said.
I’m afraid you’ve given your ability to infer language to AI and therefore there is nothing more to say here. Have a nice day.
certainly not by using llms, that’s for sure
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?
I check the sources.