I assume you are the site owner for qnotables.com and qnotables.ai
Is that correct?
Ok, tx.
Last week, someone wanted qnotables.ai added to resource list in the dough, said they'd checked with Jim or 8kun admins
That's a BO decision.
Said ok for now, but need more info.
Last night, after long discussion about ai-sauced material in notables, I asked BVs to remove qnotables.ai from the dough.
Problem yesterday is that one of the bakers wants infographics in the notables that are compiled by AI as though they were digs.
Not ok.
ANONS do digs, using our judgment and knowledge of Q to find sources that are credible.
Might also use AI to find those sources.
Do NOT use AI to collect, compile and output graphics that must stand alone without attribution.
Here is the problem.
When ONE dig, news report, legal case, etc is in ONE post with SAUCE, any anon can go to the link and read evaluated what is written. See if the arguments are valid, is there's additional sauce, etc.
When AI-generated, SYNTHESIZED info is presented in one post without a link to a human source responsible for that information, there is NO WAY for an anon to check out that info.
Here is a second problem
AI comes from companies that are, to say the least, not Q-friendly.
Even if the info is 80% or 90% correct, it is all too easy to slip in small but critical distortions that are hard to spot.
The higher the level of synthesis, and the more professional-looking the graphic, the easier it is to see a propaganda piece as valid data.
>reasonably verifiable.
How do you propose to do that?
The reason people use AI to generate reports (rather than generating them themselves) is that it's easier.
Just ask AI for the info plus a nice formatting job, and you're all set.
Ask any student.
Good research always start with a literature review which explains the history of a query, past hypotheses, previous hypotheses and findings, and why the current research is of value.
Citations alone are not enough.