what is the message to the audience? That ChatGPT can investigate just as well as BBC.
What about this part?
Either it’s irresponsible to use ChatGPT to analyze the photo or it’s irresponsible to present to the reader that chatbots can do the job. Particularly when they’ve done the investigation the proper way.
Deliberate or not, they are encouraging Facebook conspiracy debates by people who lead AI to tell them a photo is fake and think that’s just as valid as BBC reporting.
“AI Chatbot”. Which is what to 99% of people, almost certainly including the journalist who doesn’t live under a rock? They are just avoiding naming it.
No. You are the one who knows, without doubt, they used ChatGPT and can’t be wrong. If you think “hey, there are other options, don’t jump to unproven conclusions” is to like to argue I’m not the one with a problem.
I’m open to being proven wrong, but you need a bit more than “trust me, I must know”.
The article says they used ChatGPT or some similar LLM bot. It says they used a chatbot, and that’s what the word chatbot means by default. A skilled reporter mentions if it was something else.
The reporter used a chatbot such as ChatGPT to ask if there’s anything suspicious in the image, the chatbot, by coincidence, happened to point out something in the photo that the reporter could then recognise as AI-generated indeed, and got on typing his article again.
The only part of this that is not mentioned in the article is that the reporter confirmed the referred spot in the image with his own eyes, but that is such an integral part of a reporter’s education that you need specific reasons to work against the assumption that this was done.
It’s not like BBC is a single person with no skill other than a driving license and at least one functional eye.
Hell, they don’t even need to go, just call the local services.
For me it’s most likely that they have a specialized tool than an LLM detecting correctly tampering with the photo.
But if you say it’s unlikely you’re wrong, then I must be wrong I guess.
What about this part?
Either it’s irresponsible to use ChatGPT to analyze the photo or it’s irresponsible to present to the reader that chatbots can do the job. Particularly when they’ve done the investigation the proper way.
Deliberate or not, they are encouraging Facebook conspiracy debates by people who lead AI to tell them a photo is fake and think that’s just as valid as BBC reporting.
About that part I would say the article doesn’t mention ChatGPT, only AI.
“AI Chatbot”. Which is what to 99% of people, almost certainly including the journalist who doesn’t live under a rock? They are just avoiding naming it.
Yes. It’s ChatGPT. You got them good. You passed the test Neo. Now get the pills.
deleted by creator
No. You are the one who knows, without doubt, they used ChatGPT and can’t be wrong. If you think “hey, there are other options, don’t jump to unproven conclusions” is to like to argue I’m not the one with a problem.
I’m open to being proven wrong, but you need a bit more than “trust me, I must know”.
The article says they used ChatGPT or some similar LLM bot. It says they used a chatbot, and that’s what the word chatbot means by default. A skilled reporter mentions if it was something else.
The reporter used a chatbot such as ChatGPT to ask if there’s anything suspicious in the image, the chatbot, by coincidence, happened to point out something in the photo that the reporter could then recognise as AI-generated indeed, and got on typing his article again.
The only part of this that is not mentioned in the article is that the reporter confirmed the referred spot in the image with his own eyes, but that is such an integral part of a reporter’s education that you need specific reasons to work against the assumption that this was done.
No it doesn’t.
No it’s not
The article doesn’t say the kind of chatbot, not chatbot means LLM or ChatGPT.
I’m not going to continue. It’s just going in circles.
Are you sure you’re not the LLM?