Originally posted by gdavs:
↑
Actually, you’re turning this into a schoolyard debate, and to be honest, you’re becoming quite boring.Like a child, you’re getting caught up in superfluous detail, insisting that the source of information must always be declared, focusing on semantics rather than the actual content. By doing so, you’re also presenting yourself as morally superior, as if you’ve always referenced every single piece of data you’ve posted on this platform, and as if simply referencing a source makes you inherently accurate.It would be a much bigger win for you if you simply proved the CONTENT wrong rather than fixating on how the information was obtained. I have yet to hear you challenge the 20,000,000 US echocardiogram statistic that the company has repeatedly reported, even though no data supports this figure. Yet, like a child, you choose to get worked up over the fact that I used AI to search for this information. (By the way, AI scrapes the internet to source information.)You’re caught up in semantics rather than focusing on what actually matters, the data!. Grow up.
Expand
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2468440-using-ai-tools-like-chatgpt-can-reduce-critical-thinking-skills/ It's OK buddy. I won't bore you any further.
(20min delay)