![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
Mountain Goats right?
Mountain Goats right?
People don’t read. And before you down vote, it’s still bad.
It was not a human system that was posing as AI. It was a shitty AI that needed a lot of human intervention.
Yes, it’s still shit. Yes it’s still a problem with how they implemented it and how they pitched it.
But there needs to be a higher level of criticism. Saying “it was just human labor the whole time” is flatly incorrect. The better criticism is the truth… They made AI so shitty that it needed a bunch of human interaction, and their product was really really bad.
I’ve heard so many people state this as “there wasn’t any AI, it was just humans watching cameras.” And the false narrative distracts from the real story.
People pretend the truth doesn’t matter, and will retreat to “well even if it was AI it was so bad so I was still basically right.” and that’s a problem.
I think you’re applying your own viewpoint here to the general public.
I don’t enjoy wrestling. I also don’t enjoy reality TV, teen dramas, horror shows, or European Football. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have value.
If TV needs to provide some infallible, logical benefit to be worth something, then every show is in trouble. It’s practically all made up stories about nothing that matters.
This is one of the narrow times that “the customer is always right” applies correctly. It doesn’t matter if it’s “good” by any one person’s definition. If people watch, it has value.
I’d pay good money to see high quality Starcraft 2 tournaments on TV. I doubt many other people would. That’s how value is determined.
First episode on the new network - The Problem With Apple
I hate to say but the poll is biased because you asked two questions that are not the same.
I currently have a phone without a jack, so the first question is obviously no. But the second question, would I prefer it, is a yes.
So there’s a group of people who would prefer it, but it’s not a deal breaker for them in your data, but they answered a different question than the headline.
This post is both insightful and troubling. Using generative AI services to simulate conversations without explicit disclosure can be seen as unethical. Some might argue that this damages the connection that users can feel towards each other, even in an online community. Such matters should be addressed in order to restore consumer trust in the platform.
(I wrote that to sound like a GenAI response, how did I do?)