@GossiTheDog Now we can add that to Wikipedia where the fact that it's in a third party source outweighs you claiming you never said it!
It's a glorious world.
@troed I'm not sure how that has anything to do with government control of newspaper if tools are regulated.
Of course the government shouldn't care if journalists decide to do shoddy work, but using tools that actively hurt society and the planet should not be allowed for anyone.
So you think it's viable that the EU bans generative AI while China doesn't?
That would be absoutely devastating. For us.
Why would it be devastating for us? Instead of wasting money and energy into "AI" we could use all these resources for much more useful things, like actual research, more efficient programming practices, curing cancer etc. We could better communicate to the population that genAI is wasteful, useless and unethical and that people need to keep their skill levels up and their brains engaged. Other countries that don't want to ban it would fall behind and have massive unemployment, so they'd probably eventually follow us.
@troed @max
I can see that's from a genAI company (Anthropic), so whatever is written there is probably inaccurate - why would I waste my time reading it?
genAI should only be used for "entertainment", as Microsoft admitted about their Copilot. You shouldn't trust anything written via a genAI program - go to the source instead!
I don't understand why you participate in discussions if you readily admit to not knowing anything about the topic.
What good does that do anyone?
@elduvelle It's not an ad-hominem to point out that if you don't follow sourced arguments you're not participating in the discussion at all.
There's a reason I posted that specific link.
Kevin Beaumont
Troed SĂ„ngberg
Max L.
El Duvelle