“proven science”

Vaccines are a good example here. Handwashing is another. We’ve had empirical proof on the latter since the 1850s, but it’s STILL super hit or miss whether people will bother :(

Yeah, that’s true. Writing alone isn’t enough for a good movie – I’m really just saying that it’s the most important element for me.

To me, not very important. Quality of writing ranks higher for me.

I don’t think a different voice can fix a bad movie. That being said, I can’t think of any actors whose voices I can’t stand.

OTOH, Brotherhood of the Wolf does come to mind here. It’s a French movie; I’ve watched both with subtitles and dubbed. The voice actor for the English dub doesn’t quite fit the character.

his gun

Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?

Nitpick the lawyer’s phrasing all you like; it won’t actually change any of the facts of the case, whatever they may be. Myself, I’m not going to jump to “why bother having a trial? The police arrested him; he’s clearly guilty as sin” based on a Lemmy comment!

Almost like the lawyer thinks “they didn’t follow procedure” is an easier legal argument than “the police dept is trying to frame my client”.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Oddly, “bullshit” qualifies as a technical term in this context. The authors argue that chatgpt (and similar systems) emit bullshit.

They don’t lie or hallucinate because they don’t know or believe anything. It’s all just text modeling.

The focus in this type of AI is to produce text that looks convincing, but it doesn’t have any concept of truth/falsehood, fact or fiction.

When this is the way someone talks, we say that they’re bullshitting us. So it is with chatgpt.