Hi Sartesian: There are two issues buried in this following statement - no?: "The problem is one of historical accuracy and the uncritical reproduction of distortions of ideas, events, opportunities camouflaged by the use of, and appeal to the authority of, "artificial intelligence."
The first part is an issue whether or not the statements-viewpoints are generated by AI or just regular 'normal' misfiring human synapses (assuming at best an unbiased view) or a deliberately mis-presented view (at worst a species of dishonesty). To those - the conventional and in the long term successful retort - is counter-reason. At best from a myriad of perspectives. Actually that was exercised in this set of exchanges I believe. The second part is the matter of invoking 'authority of AI' as a source. Here at least it was announced. Far better that this was so than otherwise. But - How does one detect the un-announced? Is that possible except by cipher experts or those themselves using AI? The retort still returns then to counter-reason. No? What am I missing? H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#32473): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/32473 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/108500093/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
