huh, I'd say this is a bad list, almost exclusively of American films, arranged in random order. Tootsie? Better than Dr. Strangelove?!

Weird how a section got deleted in that comment: "time-stamped Google Docs so I could go back..."

A few years ago I started having students write & edit group assignments on the time-stamped go back and assess who was doing the work in good faith and whether any students were coasting or cut'n'pasting material they hadn't written. It's a lot of extra work though.

Turned his Civil War series off in disgust after a few minutes when it first aired, and have remained puzzled ever since about what ppl see in that stuff. History Channel adicts, sure...but still.

The Rangers these days aren't going to intimidate anybody. A better choice would be to drop Flyers or Penguins on the roof.

I was told the important thing is to make sure you have a respectable hair cut, get rid of those sideburns, stand up straight and answer 'Yes sir' or 'No sir' nothing else.

You can have the prime, pass me the Yorkshire pudding.

Retired Berkeley prof when I took a 3 yr job there in 1996: "Houses are a great investment opp here. Guy we hired for 1 year in the late '60s bought a house when he arrived, made a 100% profit when he sold it the next year."

Me: "Have you seen what ramshackle dumps are selling for around here NOW?"

Not to suggest that the main problem w/ "AI" is that it's a lying machine, bc it's worse than that. It's a bullshitting machine. It's not invested in any of what it spews out. Its imperative is to supply a plausible response whenever a response is needed. This is a machine that imitates sociopaths.

"143 of Hannibal's elephants got foot injuries crossing the Alps" is simply and plainly a lie whether it comes from an unreliable ancient source or from "AI" making up/repeating lies.

The standard in my field is that if you catch a source in a single lie, you don't rely on it. So why do ppl use AI?

With ancient sources (at least), it's virtually certain sources can be set aside as deceptive if they provide overly precise or specific facts when the task of obtaining, collecting or verfifying such facts would be nearly impossible or beyond the purview of any individual or group.

Training in ancient history involves honing methods to expose unreliable & fraudulent sources. Possibly the reason I see right through many of the standard dodges that the less than credible among us use to cloak themselves in "seriousness"... eg a rhetoric of "science", & above all false precision.

The task the machine purports to undertake is impossible, thus the focus is on rhetoric - that is to say persuasion - and only incidentally do these faux "answers" touch on factual information (real or imaginary) or on analysis of supposed facts. "AI" exists to delude, not to inform.

This is very clear eyed and covers a lot of things in detail. Non caregivers should learn a lot from it.

My MIL today: "He's planning to...oh what's the term for it...gobsmack the turkey."

He behaved like an arrogant asshole when he came to an invited dinner at my college in the 80s. Seemed then like he'd been born dickish.

Copperfield is a known groomer.

Yes he was my boss. His name was just on the tip of my tongue...very nice guy. His younger colleague was Vic.