No better example to shatter the myth of neutrality tham the fact that the latest-in-hype LLM DeepSeek-R1 skirts around questions that do not align with or question CCP's ideology.
Don't worry - typos jump out at me bc I edit another Substack in my spare time. There's just something about a human voice, especially a familiar one, that grabs our attention more. But maybe I just say that because I knew it was written by ChatGPT from the outset...?
After reading the disclaimer at the top I started to wonder if I would still find the article engaging (knowing AI wrote it). It was refreshing to know this came out of GPT upfront. This provided an opportunity to explore my level of engagement with the material. In this case, after some reflection, the article maintained my interest for two reasons. First, although I suffer from "AI fatigue" as a discussion topic lately (arguably a hazard of my profession), there are several points highlighted here that are new and thought-provoking. Second, I know that Andrew curated this before publishing it. Even though the material wasn't borne from his head, I appreciate that his mind evaluated it. The difference was akin to having someone you trust tell you something they came up with versus the same person sharing material they think you will find interesting or important. Both are welcome experiences. I admit I was not sure this would be the case and I'm glad that it was, given the direction we are all headed.
Thanks Sean – I should have said something about this in the postscript, but my role as curator/editor here was crucial. Without my assessment of whether the article was accurate, fit for purpose, and a value-add, things could have been very different
No better example to shatter the myth of neutrality tham the fact that the latest-in-hype LLM DeepSeek-R1 skirts around questions that do not align with or question CCP's ideology.
I thought the bot did a reasonable job, but for some reason it was less engaging than your usual posts (albeit with fewer typos 😅)!
You are too kind ... I think 😀
Don't worry - typos jump out at me bc I edit another Substack in my spare time. There's just something about a human voice, especially a familiar one, that grabs our attention more. But maybe I just say that because I knew it was written by ChatGPT from the outset...?
I'm renowned for my typos 😄 As a result I copy edit closely, but as you will know, errors have a habit of slipping by an author's eyes!
You need your own volunteer editor 🤣. But surely chatgpt can sort that out for you now...
After reading the disclaimer at the top I started to wonder if I would still find the article engaging (knowing AI wrote it). It was refreshing to know this came out of GPT upfront. This provided an opportunity to explore my level of engagement with the material. In this case, after some reflection, the article maintained my interest for two reasons. First, although I suffer from "AI fatigue" as a discussion topic lately (arguably a hazard of my profession), there are several points highlighted here that are new and thought-provoking. Second, I know that Andrew curated this before publishing it. Even though the material wasn't borne from his head, I appreciate that his mind evaluated it. The difference was akin to having someone you trust tell you something they came up with versus the same person sharing material they think you will find interesting or important. Both are welcome experiences. I admit I was not sure this would be the case and I'm glad that it was, given the direction we are all headed.
Thanks Sean – I should have said something about this in the postscript, but my role as curator/editor here was crucial. Without my assessment of whether the article was accurate, fit for purpose, and a value-add, things could have been very different