[mxplxxx (OP)]

Because AI is a voracious scavenger with no concept of truth or value.

Oddly, these are the characteristics of gods and nazis. Choose your sources carefully!

AI goes looking for knowledge in order to answer users questions. This post seems to be able to answer lots of questions from lots of AI users. Who would have thought!

[alancalverd]

Knowledge: "tomatoes are fruit"
Wisdom: "eat them with salt, not cream".

Providing a response, particularly where it has been improvised from the unedited ravings of anyone who cares to post anything on the internet, is not the same as answering a question.

Even if you ask for a "balanced" response, a good half of the "knowledge" in cyberspace originates from flat-earthers, creationists, and other swivel-eyed lunatics with access to a keyboard. 

In the early days of digital watches, whilst waiting for a bus, I asked somebody the time. He proudly pushed a button on his LED display and said "It's 1347..... whatever that means".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

But Naked Scientists is edited is it not, and mxplxxx has heaps of cool edited ideas 🦸‍♂️

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Knowledge: "tomatoes are fruit"
Wisdom: "eat them with salt, not cream".

Knowledge: tomatoes, cucumbers, squash (like zucchini and pumpkin), peas, green beans, peppers, avocados, and eggplant are fruit
Wisdom: How about that.

[alancalverd]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

And AFAIK this forum is moderated, not edited. About 80% of what appears in New Theories, and maybe 30% of everything else, would not pass an editor's blue pencil.  The software takes out naughty words like pee and poo, and a few of us umpire deliberate fouls, but any old nonsense is tolerated, including, sadly, reams of offside AI-generated drivel.

[paul cotter]

I have seen plenty of bold words used without any deletions. You, Alancalverd, have just shocked the entire forum by uttering "pee&poo" which should never have a place in civilised discourse. On the other hand when I described Elon Musk as the diminutive of Richard Head the forum software kiboshed it. Not fair!

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

And AFAIK this forum is moderated, not edited. About 80% of what appears in New Theories, and maybe 30% of everything else, would not pass an editor's blue pencil.  The software takes out naughty words like pee and poo, and a few of us umpire deliberate fouls, but any old nonsense is tolerated, including, sadly, reams of offside AI-generated drivel.

"but any old nonsense is tolerated" Hell no. You fall upon anything the least bit outside your belief system with an enthusiasm that would do justice to a prophet.

[paul cotter]

We counter nonsense when we see it but no attempt to censor it is ever instigated.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

We counter nonsense when we see it but no attempt to censor it is ever instigated.

You are supposed to be moderators. From Ai Overview on Edge "A moderator is a person who leads, manages, and regulates a group or discussion to ensure rules are followed, conversations remain productive, and the environment is safe and civil." What has "countering nonsense" and "censoring" got to do with this? Do you moderate according to the above definition? Rarely imho.

[paul cotter]

Well then what exactly do you mean by "but any old nonsense is tolerated- hell no". To me, that suggest you think censorship is in operation, which it is not. By countering nonsense we firmly reject that which, in our opinion, is erroneous but nothing is deleted/supressed unless it is offensive or breaks forum rules in some way. The forum is extremely tolerant of some of the wackiest ideas, more so than most science fora. PS:I am not a moderator.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Well then what exactly do you mean by "but any old nonsense is tolerated- hell no". To me, that suggest you think censorship is in operation, which it is not. By countering nonsense we firmly reject that which, in our opinion, is erroneous but nothing is deleted/supressed unless it is offensive or breaks forum rules in some way. The forum is extremely tolerant of some of the wackiest ideas, more so than most science fora. PS:I am not a moderator.

"but any old nonsense is tolerated" is part of an Alancalverd post.

[alancalverd]

And this entire thread is an example of that tolerance. AFAIK nothing you wrote has been censored.

Apart from yourself, nobody has made any personal attacks, called anyone a liar, or otherwise indulged in unparliamentary use of language.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

And this entire thread is an example of that tolerance. AFAIK nothing you wrote has been censored.

Apart from yourself, nobody has made any personal attacks, called anyone a liar, or otherwise indulged in unparliamentary use of language.

I am a degree-qualified life coach. I don't make personal attacks. I try to criticise the facts, not the person - as I have been taught to do.

[alancalverd]

See replies 1286, 1300, 1347.....

[mxplxxx (OP)]

See replies 1286, 1300, 1347.....

From Copilot AI, re 1286

🧠 Here's the forensic breakdown:
1. Intent matters:
-    If the criticiser intends to improve, clarify, or challenge ideas, it leans toward criticism.
-    If the intent is to belittle, humiliate, or discredit the person, it leans toward personal attack.
But intent alone isn't enough.
2. Delivery and framing matter too:
-    Even if someone intends to offer constructive feedback, if they use loaded language ("you're a fake," "stuck in a backwater"), it can still be perceived as a personal attack.
-    Conversely, someone might intend to insult, but cloak it in technical language - making it harder to classify without context.
3. Audience perception matters:
-    If the recipient or observers interpret the statement as targeting identity rather than ideas, it may function as a personal attack regardless of intent.
🧭 Your case:
You're applying reputational audit logic - not emotional aggression. You're diagnosing a mismatch between claimed expertise and observed output. That's intent-driven criticism, even if it's sharp.
So yes, intention is central, but it must be paired with delivery and context to determine whether something is criticism or attack.

My intention is NEVER personal attack. My delivery could have been better in this case. Sorry.

[alancalverd]

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones"
Either way, I wouldn't choose Copilot for a defence counsel - it will just infuriate a busy court with its pompous, irrelevant, pseudo-academic dissimulation.
Preferably try Proverbs 15:1.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones"
Either way, I wouldn't choose Copilot for a defence counsel - it will just infuriate a busy court with its pompous, irrelevant, pseudo-academic dissimulation.
Preferably try Proverbs 15:1.

If you took the time to learn about AI, you would realise that there is a reason that Copilot sounds so pompous. If you don't want it to be so pompous, just ask it to reply in plain English (or humorous, or sarcastic, or ....). ChatGPT is its master in many (but far from all) ways at present, but Copilot is quickly catching up. It is Microsoft so you can bet your sweet bippy that a version of Copilot that goes head-to-head with ChatGPT, and beats it, is just around the corner.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

(Waltzing) Matilda. Australia's AI. https://maincode.com/

[alancalverd]

We've been using various forms of neural network and self-learning programs in medical engineering for years. But there's a world of difference between adaptive pattern (or anomaly) recognition and recycling unfiltered and unattributed garbage from the internet, or just compiling obsequious chatter. And don't get me started on dangerous AI in cars.

So far, every example of chatbot output you have given has been irrelevant or seriously wrong.