Counterpoint: The government could have made zero missteps and the Tory press would still be going after them.

Yep. Or clicked "Save and Publish" instead of just "Save".

Well, presumably he has access to a record of his own talking points that he raised in the chamber, many of which turned out to be strikingly similar in tone and content to those that Nathan Gill was paid by the Russians to make.

You, presumably, looking for the evidence of Trump's open corruption:

(this is a joke, not an assertion)

This is farcical. How is the BBC going to do its favourite thing in the whole world (report on the BBC) without being able to dissect the line in question letter by letter?

No! I'm denying that it is a big credibility issue for the government. OBVIOUSLY. That's ... what we're discussing here.

OK and yet you're here using and defending it, and you wonder why I'm not even starting to make an environmental argument and am focussing on it's lack of accuracy. I'm not making the environmental argument because you've already made it clear you get that.

It
was
someone
hitting
publish
instead
of
save
by
mistake
THIS
IS
NOT
A
SYSTEMIC
ISSUE
IT'S
A
COCKUP

"If the press reports it, it's true" is perhaps THE stupidest argument anyone involved in the press (financial or otherwise) could ever make and frankly I'd be embarrassed to be you if I'd done so.

I have very much experimented and I suspect I've attempted to follow up a shitload more AI citations than you have, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting there thinking that was an argument. THAT's what says you don't check.

PR consultant?

Listen to yourself.

Its an ouroboros of vested interests trying to make someone's screw up on the content team at OBR into a metaphor for entirely different organisations.

You don't see how utterly ridiculous you all look.

In every way, it is NOT a faster Google, because you have to go and double check everything it says, instead of knowing instinctively the level of trust you have for the website whose result you've chosen to read.

You ... *DO* double check everything it tells you, right?

It's the very definition of driving a narrative through thumbing the scales of reporting. Someone in the OBR fucked up and that's being used, through some deeply wacky underpants-gnomes reasoning, to imply that there's something wrong with the Government, who didn't even do the thing in question.

OK, but it's insane that that matters. You do get that it's insane, right? The fact that the story exists is the beginning, middle and end of it. It has no outward impact other than that someone has written about it. It hasn't broken anything, it hasn't cost anything, the definitive nothingburger.

How about no?

This is a thing you guys probably need to learn to say more. "What if we asked Gemini to...." "Let me stop you there - No."

The UK public could literally not care less that the OBR accidentally pressed "Save and publish" instead of "Save" on its wordpress site. Honestly. Like, maybe it matters to Bloomberg, but it has absolutely zero impact to the rest of us.

That's a preposterous argument.

Really?

You've used Gemini to create a list?