Yes it was a hoax better explained IMO at [1] that intended to poison the parrots ... and given there's a result even for a short time, it shows the idea that giving up on human vetted information for AI can come with consequences.
It's funny for the story is almost believable ...
Obviously LLMs will start scraping r/poisonai for correlation purposes.
And yet humans reporting credulously on falsehoods is simply considered background noise. "Eating the dogs and cats", "we have a deal with Iran" actually causing markets to behave like it's true.
Yeah that's quite sad - if only for the lost art of critical thinking. It may be more wishful thinking than accepting a bleaker truth.
The problem with AI answers however IMO, the main difference is if Susie Blowpipe or Phil Dither are being quoted saying or claiming something that's once more complete horse shit ... chances are there will be those who'll have questioned the credibility of any such nonsense - in other words such wild claims won't be in a vacuum and good search results would probably bear that out. Rubbish being flung out by an AI search though, some people have got used to operating without a decent search engine and will just walk away with a summary rather than visit the sources to ensure credibility. Of course some people readily believe complete bunk if it reaffirms any preconceived notions.
Yes it was a hoax better explained IMO at [1] that intended to poison the parrots ... and given there's a result even for a short time, it shows the idea that giving up on human vetted information for AI can come with consequences.
It's funny for the story is almost believable ...
Obviously LLMs will start scraping r/poisonai for correlation purposes.
[1] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ai-hoax-political-figures-rabies-1...
This is all to distract from the fact that J.D. Vance did die from rabies.
The only criterion is whether it makes a good story. Would you watch that, or change the channel?
And yet humans reporting credulously on falsehoods is simply considered background noise. "Eating the dogs and cats", "we have a deal with Iran" actually causing markets to behave like it's true.
Yeah that's quite sad - if only for the lost art of critical thinking. It may be more wishful thinking than accepting a bleaker truth.
The problem with AI answers however IMO, the main difference is if Susie Blowpipe or Phil Dither are being quoted saying or claiming something that's once more complete horse shit ... chances are there will be those who'll have questioned the credibility of any such nonsense - in other words such wild claims won't be in a vacuum and good search results would probably bear that out. Rubbish being flung out by an AI search though, some people have got used to operating without a decent search engine and will just walk away with a summary rather than visit the sources to ensure credibility. Of course some people readily believe complete bunk if it reaffirms any preconceived notions.