Also, I’d like to know why one animal doing one thing is used to justify human behaviour as “natural” while another animal doing something else is not. (Or even the same animal doing something else is not.)
There are tons of non-territorial animals, for example.
Nah, I’m running a GNU Unix.
Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don’t vet their sources, their work is without merit.
Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.
If they can’t do that, then there’s no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.
This. Here’s a comparable case where human journalists did exactly what LLMs are doing now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
The difference is the scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don’t.
AI didn’t invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.
I think I caught an RSV virus from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
We did the same before AI. AI is once again just putting an old problem on steroids.
It’s the same as when network providers said that cars need 5G for self-driving cars, and the car manufacturers were like “What for?”.
Why are some things that some animals do used as a justification for humans to do the same, while other animals doing something else isn’t?
For example, Wikipedia says this about the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_(animal)
It is natural to not have borders, and only a few species do.