XPost: rec.arts.drwho, uk.media.tv.sf.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv 
 XPost: rec.arts.tv 
 From: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca 
  
 In article , 
 The Last Doctor   wrote: 
 >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)? 
 > 
  
 Yes about 0/10 and you did not read. 
  
 >-- 
 >€€€The timelines and €€€ canon €€€ are rupturing€€€ - the Doctor 
  
  
 -- 
 Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca 
 Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist 
 rising! 
 Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)