I'd expand on this previous notable:
>>5203540, >>5203652 The AI text generator that's too dangerous to make public
Trained with 8 million articles I'm sure the AI did not come up with that. Unless the only used "fake news" cherry picked article. Even then I'm sure it took quite a few try to get that result.
Logic suggests that it was written, or copy-pastad, by the author as we know that most of it is true with just a few errors thrown in for good measure:
-
They are not the ONLY two player
-
She didn't just KNOW about the deal
-
Probably not the FIRST time they got caught on tape
-
etc
The cherry on top is obviously the comparison to something (impossible, afaik) as underwater fires.
Then (coincidentally an other wired author) posts on twitter this piece of the article and he, of course, retweets it.
Interesting comment then happens: AI can be used to censor AI fake news.
Per Q#830:
> Who controls the narrative?
> WHO wrote the singular censorship algorithm?
> WHO deployed the algorithm?
> WHO instructed them to deploy the algorithm?
Funny how all this "openess" gets locked down when it doesn't serve them anymore.