puretaste

@emilymbender@dair-community.social they seriously ask this question?

@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social I think they're revealing a: that no-one actually read these reports critically before anyway (or maybe just that nobody read them, period), and b: at least in some other cases than this one, that one of the things broken by the chatbots are the foundational chains of trust that enables people to trust presumably well-intentioned output from competent people who either believe it is a good idea to use chatbots, or are forced to use them.

@stux W O W

@lorimolson@mstdn.ca @MostlyHarmless@thecanadian.social avian flu

@billyjoebowers it's time for someone to make an AI app for using Google that replaces ads, AI summaries and search results with AI-generated recreations if the agent randomly decides to.

@stux I find that if I can't find a solution myself on like the first try, the chatbots also have no clue and will usually just output some remix the documentation for something else with some of the words I used.

@stux@mstdn.social well obviously you need to ✧･ﾟ*✧ leverage the power of ai ✧*･ﾟ✧ to detect the bots so you can moderate more efficiently in *＊✿❀ the age of ai ❀✿＊*

@anarchic_teapot@oc.todon.fr @sundogplanets@mastodon.social Not sure how US stuff works, but I'd normally read this as bureaucrats saying "this is something politicians didn't think of when making the rules; our conclusion is absurd, but we're powerless to conclude otherwise and the way to change it is to contact your politicians, not us."