I don't need to do that. And what's more, it wouldn't be any kind of proof because I can bias the results just by how I phrase the query. I've been using AI for 6 years and use it on a near-daily basis. I'm very familiar with what it can do and what it can't.
Between bias and randomness, you will have images that are evaluated as both fake and real at different times to different people. What use is that?
"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.
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.
Okay I get you're playing devil's advocate here, but set that aside for a moment. Is it more likely that BBC has a specialized chatbot that orchestrates expert APIs including for analyzing photos, or that the reporter asked ChatGPT? Even in the unlikely event I'm wrong, what is the message to the audience? That ChatGPT can investigate just as well as BBC. Which may well be the case, but it oughtn't be.
My second point still stands. If you sent someone to look at the thing and it's fine, I can tell you the photo is fake or manipulated without even looking at the damn thing.
To whom? People without jets? That sounds like a really niche market...
A "chatbot" is not a specialized AI.
(I feel like maybe I need to put this boilerplate in every comment about AI, but I'd hate that.) I'm not against AI or even chatbots. They have their uses. This is not using them appropriately.
It's been a minute but as I recall he did not treat evidence of wrongdoing the same between Hillary and Trump.
The case against Comey is ridiculous, but frankly, he is having the day he created in the first place. Fuck that guy. Not that I think he should be found guilty of anything here, but I'm not celebrating his win here, just Trump's loss.
A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.
What the actual fuck? You couldn't spare someone to just go look at the fucking thing rather than asking ChatGPT to spin you a tale? What are we even doing here, BBC?
A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged
So they did. Why are we talking about ChatGPT then? You could just leave that part out. It's useless. Obviously a fake photo has been manipulated. Why bother asking?
I've never looked at the code base and I could make a reasonable guess as to what it's about. I'm guessing it has to do with pasting a fediverse link into a post and making it point to the actual instance instead of the federated link.
I could be wrong but it looks like it would make sense to the maintainers of the code.
Or am I just missing a joke here?
Edit: sorry if this comes across dickish. I don't have context for the question. It looks frankly like a very efficient use of words — I'm a little bit in awe. Take away one word and it would be gibberish to me. My own commit messages are not nearly as efficient.
It does raise a question of just how many jets a single person needs. I, myself, could make do with as few as two, but I have a large family. I'm sure someone who lived a more frugal lifestyle might struggle by with only one? But I don't see anyone needing more than three. It's just so hard to find places to park them all...
What does that chatbot add?