There are embarrassing hot microphone moments, and there are infuriating episodes when the quiet part is said out loud and amplified to an unintended public audience. It happened to Andy Griffith’s Lonesome Rhodes in the classic film A Face in the Crowd, ending his populist political and, at least, temporarily, his television broadcasting career. Since...
It’s clear they didn’t actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make “fake news.” So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it’s taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don’t make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don’t actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You’re not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they’re “fake news” as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, “Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI” – which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
LMAO it’s a fucking video dude. You’re saying you’re NOT saying it’s AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
You keep repeating the low credibility but you refuse to read with or engage with WHY they got that rating, and it wasn’t for not presenting facts or making shit up, its purely ideological and how they PRESENT facts.
So how are they PRESENTING this that is making it biased? When they make a full report on it I expect it to be DEEPLY biased, but the video on it’s own is very likely real. I’m happy to be proven wrong.
But I think you just read LOW CREDIBILITY and your brain shuts off and you cant suss out that there’s a difference between actually presenting fake journalism and fake stories versus deeply misrepresenting what those facts mean. They got low credibility for BIAS, not FACTS.
Sorry I bothered to read their fucking reasoning and you won’t
It’s clear they didn’t actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make “fake news.” So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it’s taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don’t make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don’t actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You keep putting “fake news” in quotations like it’s something they said.
Oh so claiming it’s quite possibly AI isn’t directly making a claim that it’s most likely fake? Interesting.
It’s not even something I said lol. They’re clueless.
You’re not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they’re “fake news” as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, “Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI” – which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
“Don’t trust this to be any more than AI” directly implies that it must be fake.
No, it does not lol. AI can distort half-truths / half-lies, take things out of context, but yes can also fabricate entirely.
Remember: LOW CREDIBILITY
LMAO it’s a fucking video dude. You’re saying you’re NOT saying it’s AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
Videos can’t be AI?
“LOW CREDIBILITY”
You just outright refuse to read the fact that they have never been found to make up facts. That would include making fake AI videos dude.
Anyway thanks for admitting you refuse to take a look at the facts and instead are screaming ITS FAKE with no evidence to back it up other than feels.
Funny, it’s like you think given their LOW CREDIBILITY that they wouldn’t have a first (even assuming they haven’t in the past).
You keep repeating the low credibility but you refuse to read with or engage with WHY they got that rating, and it wasn’t for not presenting facts or making shit up, its purely ideological and how they PRESENT facts.
So how are they PRESENTING this that is making it biased? When they make a full report on it I expect it to be DEEPLY biased, but the video on it’s own is very likely real. I’m happy to be proven wrong.
But I think you just read LOW CREDIBILITY and your brain shuts off and you cant suss out that there’s a difference between actually presenting fake journalism and fake stories versus deeply misrepresenting what those facts mean. They got low credibility for BIAS, not FACTS.
Sorry I bothered to read their fucking reasoning and you won’t