>>18168554 (lb)

>without the "filters/algorithms" most search engines apply. A.I. doesn't seem to be "woke" (yet).

You might want to dig on that, as you are wrong, anon.

https://www.insider.com/chatgpt-is-like-many-other-ai-models-rife-with-bias-2023-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYKDt7g4jGY

It's a long video, but well worth a watch if you are genuinely interested in these sophisticated algorithms that are being marketed as "AI"

He goes through how it works, how it's flawed, and how to intelligently query it for various purposes (ChatGPT/OpenAI mainly in this one)

"AI" is no replacment for human discernement.

>>18168687

It still demonstrates how the bias is inserted.

Which one are you using?

Who does it come from?

They're pretty much all provided by known DS tech companies.

All these idiots posting FakeAI (they're not AI, they are facsimilies of the definition of what an AI is) crap here with no discernment, reminds anon of the people trusting the shots without looking at the companies involved, or the ingredients - ALL of whom have had some of the the largest fines in history for lying about their 'product'.

You like the answers it gives as it confirms your own biases.

(These are general you's to whom they apply).

>>18168745

>>18168764

>>18168719

>Which one are you using?

>Who does it come from?

>They're pretty much all provided by known DS tech companies.

>>18168788

>There is a real non corporate, unaligned

Remember Linux? Tt was similar. Then the NSA got involved…

But, I will give it a look, anon. Although they ought to use it themselves to fix their WP site - "AI" is really good at scraping Github for others hard graft, so shouldn't be an issue, KEK!!

>>18168840

*It was similar…