XPost: rec.arts.drwho, uk.media.tv.sf.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv 
 XPost: rec.arts.tv 
 From: mike@xenocyte.com 
  
 Not The Doctor  wrote: 
 > The Last Doctor   wrote: 
 >> Not The Doctor  wrote: 
 >>> The Last Doctor   wrote: 
 >>>> Not The Doctor  wrote: 
 >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 >>>> This is a lie Dave, isn€€€t it? You didn€€€t write this. It€€€s AI 
 generated 
 >>>> spaff. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> It€€€s full of errors (which is a bit like you) but is coherent and 
 >>>> grammatically correct (which is not at all like you). And it spots lots 
 of 
 >>>> things that you never would. 
 >>>> 
 >>> 
 >>> You hate changes of style? 
 >> 
 >> I love changes of style. But if you wrote one of your usual incoherent 
 >> point-by-points, I doubt CoPilot or whatever you used would be able to 
 >> polish your turd that far. I€€€d be delighted to be proved wrong - care to 
 >> post what you fed into the AI engine so we can see? 
 >> 
 >> You€€€ve not written anything that coherent in this group - ever. And 
 it€€€s 
 >> packed solidly with tells that it€€€s an AI composited screed. 
 > 
 > CoPilot is a huge security! [risk, I infer] 
  
 It€€€s a security risk if you use the public version to compose text based 
 on 
 privileged material. The risk is to the confidentiality of information, 
 though, not to your computer. Companies can have private instances of 
 CoPilot that have access to the public body of information to drive their 
 learning, but ring fence any material fed in from the company. 
  
 But you€€€re still evading: what AI did this come from and did you give it 
 any input other than a target score, and if so what did YOU write? 
  
 >>>>> 6/10 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Is that your rating, or is the AI a bigger fanboi than you? 
 >>> 
 >>> Mine, so what is yours? 
 >> 
 >> I€€€ll give my thoughts in due course. And I won€€€t run them through an 
 AI 
 >> bot. It€€€s fine if you need that crutch. But you really should 
 acknowledge 
 >> that it€€€s by no means your own work. 
 > 
 > You just watched it and you cannot beat AGA into a review? 
  
 1. It€€€s not a race. First review is almost never the best: case in point 
 you, who must be typing instead of watching normally, and now are just 
 accepting any old AI generated crap and tagging on a rating. 
  
 2. For me I need to watch at least twice before giving my thoughts: once 
 just to watch it and see if I enjoy it, then again to spot nuances. And in 
 this case, I also need to re-watch €€€The Church on Ruby Road€€€ before 
 commenting. 
  
 3. The episode, in conjunction with its purpose for the series and the 
 season, was more complex than it appears on the surface. Takes a while to 
 put down my thoughts sometimes. 
  
 4. I doubt Aggie gave a real review any more than you have. By the time 
 you€€€ve removed the vitriolic rhetoric about €€€degenerate crap for 
 illiterates€€€ I suspect there is virtually nothing left. Guessing it got a 
 0/10 from him? Did he at least tell us whether he is a homosexual, a 
 transvestite, or both, (his only choices, as earlier this week he told us 
 that only such people could watch the show, and yet it seems he has watched 
 it)? 
  
 -- 
 €€€The timelines and €€€ canon €€€ are rupturing€€€ - the Doctor 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)