s

It seems like that feature is just a sort of mad-libs style of generating strings of text and it mostly appeals to the random=funny crowd. Seems like it can occasionally come up with something coherent or clever but I’m not going to throw the money at it to determine a success rate. It reminds me of Cyanide & Happiness’s random comic generator. Relatively harmless compared to other AI stuff so long as people keep the slop to themselves. I don’t like how they use “AI” as a buzzword for marketing that technology.

What part of this meme comes across as AI to you? The cartoon pirate is a little sus to me but not glaringly so. The joke itself seems plausibly human in design, and the formatting also would be human-made (ex. underlining the C’s and the Q). The lefthand image is an actual painting by Bonaventura Peeters.

Instructions unclear: currently in a superposition of both alive and dead while trapped within a box

It was actually Hamlet (source: I was there)

I was asking since I’ve seen more egregious cases of people rewriting what they’ve said. Your change is relatively mild and you were open about it, so I wasn’t sweating it for this case.

Is there a way to see an archive of posts/comments before each edit?

I think this was an intentional choice by the writer/editor to pair together two statements of similar truthfulness — er, rather, what the Ministry of Truth says is true.

(despite the em dash, I am still a human)

From the article:

There is no evidence the pair were introduced to each other by Epstein, who took his own life in prison while awaiting trial in 2019.

editor

Do you think this was a photoshop or an AI generated image? The original image has got to be rather old if it’s a photoshop since he doesn’t look like that anymore

No, you and those 72 virgins just have to hang out and take turns playing Mario Kart

lol no. Photographs can easily be faked, especially with modern technology. Defer to those who have applied the scientific method, who have done solid research, and even do those things yourself to cross-reference; you should really know scientific literacy by now.

“Guy who does actual literal magic” is never real. “Guy who alone violently killed numerous women in London 1888-1891” (AKA Jack the Ripper), as a counterexample, is plausible but (as far as I know) has yet to be proven or disproven by historical evidence or other scientific means as to if it was one killer or multiple killers. “Guy whom historians generally agree did XYZ and had such and such characteristics based on their study of historical evidence and use of the scientific method” is virtually guaranteed to be real within a level of approximation (as in, even if we don’t know John Doe’s middle name was Jack, John Jack Doe still existed but only slightly different from how we know him).

taken to it’s logical conclusion - leads us to believe virtually nobody existed prior to that advent of photography.

That has the logical weight of Last Thursdayism or The Truman Show Delusion. Like technically it’s possible, but there are way more assumptions being made about what it obscured than there are assumptions being made about what is observed.

Unfortunately there really are people who lack the critical thinking skills to recognize that historical evidence and the scientific method are valid methods of understanding truth in the world and they instead wallow in their baseless preconceived notions