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:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Of course I didn€€€t read it. I have the loon permanently kill filed. I€€€ve
>got no interest in his moronic racist homophobic screeds and the utter
>certainty he has that his tiny mind€€€s viewpoint is the only thing right
>with the world. I only see the parts of what he€€€s vomited out that others
>respond to: that€€€s quite enough for me, thanks.
>
I might quote him more often.
>--
>€€€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)
|