It’s an aged like milk format, it’s supposed to be a “he he, jeeez that didn’t age well”
Not “HAHAHAH THEN HE TURNED AROUND AND RAPED PEOPLE”
Trying to stand up for sexual assault/abuse/trafficking victims is noble for sure and rape jokes obviously wouldn’t be funny. But that is not what is happening in this post.
Edit: removed the presumption that you’re aligned with Japan based on your name and are thus more sensitive to SA topics bc that’s fucking stupid ass logic
Which is why hardcoded fingerprints/identifications are required to identify the individual as a speaker rather than as an AI vs Human. Which is what we’re ultimately agreeing on here outside of the pedantics of the article and scientific findings:
Trying to find the model who is supposed to be human as an AI is counter intuitive. They’re direct opposites if one works, both can’t be exist in this implementation.
The hard part will obviously be making sure that such a “fingerprint” wouldn’t be removable which will take some wild math and out of the box thinking I’m sure.
I’m not sure I’m following your argument here - you keep switching between talking about AI and AI detectors. Each of the below are just numbered according to the order of your prior responses as sentences:
Can you provide any articles or blog posts from AI companies for this or point me in the right direction?
Agreed
Right…
I’m having trouble finding your support for your claim
Yeah this makes a lot of sense considering the vastness of language and it’s imperfections (English I’m mostly looking at you, ya inbred fuck)
Are there any other detection techniques that you know of? Wb forcing AI models to have a signature that is guaranteed to be indentifiable, permanent, and unique for each tuning produced? It’d have to be not directly noticeable but easy to calculate in order to prevent any “distractions” for the users.
Depends if they’re more researchers or a business imo. Scientists generally speaking are very cautious about making shit claims bc if they get called out that’s their career really.
I can’t argue about dietary findings as the gut is still a very much unknown environment which includes things like digestion and nutrient processing and I know very little on that topic frankly
I can argue however that needing a new liver because you’re a drunk and feeding your child some chicken are two veeeery different needs. Some people do need these organs, that’s fine. What I’m not fine with is knowing damn well man will abuse this shit and abuse the animals where as food is a consistent need not a resultant need.
I’m sorry man but when it comes to international topics I can’t trust some faceless user on the internet for a run down of what happened.
Do you have any sources or directions you can point me in for more information about the inconsistencies in reporting?
(Just had a thought, we should have meta news agencies that analyze news agencies (including each other meta news agency))