[flagged]

bayindirh 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's funny how many of us know the shortcomings of AI, yet we can't be bothered to do the thing ourselves and read or at least skim a in-depth research paper to increase our depth.

Even if we don't agree with what we read, or find its flaws.

Paradox of the century.

P.S.: Using ChatGPT to summary something you don't bother to skim while claiming AI is a scam is the cherry on top.

▲

rpdillon 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I read the entire paper a couple of days ago and have done a lot of work to critique it because I think it is flawed in several ways. Ironically, this AI summary is actually quite accurate. You're getting down voted because posting AI output is not condoned, but that doesn't mean that in this case it is not correct.

▲

Sharlin 7 hours ago | parent [-]

They're getting downvoted because without even taking a look at the paper, they felt that "please create a summary of the stupid, bad faith, idiot, fake science paper" is a reasonable way to ask for a summary.

	▲	rpdillon 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, but does anybody care that the paper that's in the link doesn't substantiate its central claim with empirical evidence?

▲

cybersquare 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's ok, I'll just read the AI summary...