Previously, these belief systems tended to collapse under their own weight. Contradictions and memory gaps made them hard to sustain. Now the AI removes that friction, it produces timelines, summaries, and "forensic" explanations on demand.

Jot that down 💀 lmao

Thank you 🥰

increasing costs that are already unaffordable for many, removing some services entirely. Hey, even death will cost you more as they're increasing crematorium costs. Even this, all of this, will bring them nowhere near their 'target'. Why is this allowed? We should be in the streets, man. 2/2

This is what's in it...

Haha no, we were having a relevant conversation. The guy I blocked just kept replying to me with things that weren't related to the original post.

But an LLM can't reliably fact check, and you said you fact checked it... both can't be true. I find it wild that people will use an admittedly flaky and unreliable system to do 'research' or to 'fact check' and say it's a great tool.

(source for graphic: www.seroundtable.com/ai-search-en...)

Okay, but you said, 'Obviously fact checked results. Gemini knew the text (stolen, as it's Copyright) but provided valuable and correct insights (mostly).' So were you fact checking Gemini or was Gemini fact checking you? Because you just indicated it didn't always get facts right?

But then surely the overriding point is that you didn't do this, an LLM did?

I've just had a quick look and I still don't understand the point of this. It seems like you just asked it a lot of questions that you should in theory, already know, if you've read the book? What was the intended reason/output?

What do you mean by 'work through details'? As in, what did you ask it to do, and if you had to thoroughly fact check it, did this actually save you time? And I suppose another question is, if it's been right once, and if it was again (and again) would you stop fact checking it?

Even if we put the theft and environmental issues aside, I'm yet to hear/see a genuinely good use/application of generative AI, its potential for error is just too high. Not only this, but the idea behind many of the tools is to take a person or people out of the equation.

😭 Maggie Smith reading this out would be perfect

Should have specified 'in my mentions mansplaining to me' lol

Sorry guys, got out of my circle and instantly stopped being fun so have limited the replies.