How exactly IS this plausable? I mean we know but its a great redpill.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Publishing companies for years have been plagued by too many submissions and too little time to screen them.
This has led to some enterprising neural network programmers to find ways to game the system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUDWn_obddI
I'd wager many of these books have been written by AI and then a team of humans screen and editorialize them into making sense.
They can churn these out in less than a week and make buckos off the fear they generate.
There are even more nefarious purposes for this technology, but when you see all these books come out just know that you're only now noticing a horribly butchered industry (peer-reviewed books publishing) doing what it has been doing for the last couple years, completely uninhibited.
Ok.. but I like my "They knew beforehand" narrative better.
That also assume these might have real content.
The AI theory assumes the books are piles of shit.
They're Kindle Unlimited, so I downloaded a few to see what they were, they were all news articles and pages of how to wash your hands and BS like that.
Often the AI spurts quite plausible research-y sounding words, 250 words at a time. All one has to do is check it for English, and maybe add a real reference. By the time you have done that the next bit is ready. Of course it is all shite. But one wonders what the implications are for theses or dissertations, where there are even less people checking. Even Journals are not immune. The problem is that the AI manages to produce un-plagiarised words, so the traditional plagiarism checks are useless. Quite funny really if you think about it.
The free trials only spit out 250 words. If you get into the tools these websites are using for people to toy with, you can get way more than that.
How would they know that the WHO was going to skip Nu and Xi?
CTRL+H, find and replace.