I think all of us here know that ChatGPT is not reliable, so when I share something from there, it is to be taken as a revelation of the subscribed point of view that is controlled. It's like saying, "according to the New York Times." You get my drift. Like it or not, it is still a source.
I didn't say anything about it being credible. Even if someone named Bob is always saying something that's full of shit, Bob is still the source. I don't think you understand what a source is.
If it's not credible, then it shouldn't be acknowledged.
Bob may be the source for bad information, but you're the one asking Bob these questions and then coming back to talk about what he said as if it's worth anything. Why go through the effort if Bob sucks?
A lot of people are going to AI to get answers just like they stupidly go to wikipedia. By showing what these sources are saying, you reveal the narrative. It's a learning activity.
I think all of us here know that ChatGPT is not reliable, so when I share something from there, it is to be taken as a revelation of the subscribed point of view that is controlled. It's like saying, "according to the New York Times." You get my drift. Like it or not, it is still a source.
Uh, no lol. I don't get your drift. Chat GPT is an AI program. It's not a source at all. That's insane that it should be seen as credible.
I didn't say anything about it being credible. Even if someone named Bob is always saying something that's full of shit, Bob is still the source. I don't think you understand what a source is.
If it's not credible, then it shouldn't be acknowledged.
Bob may be the source for bad information, but you're the one asking Bob these questions and then coming back to talk about what he said as if it's worth anything. Why go through the effort if Bob sucks?
A lot of people are going to AI to get answers just like they stupidly go to wikipedia. By showing what these sources are saying, you reveal the narrative. It's a learning activity.