Those in control of it aren't able to distinguish factual reporting today. Remember a few months ago when all the so called "reputable" news was screaming about an alleged terror attack against the UN that was caught, and it turned out to be nothing but a basic SMS fraud operation? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4w0d8zz22o
> Those in control of it aren't able to distinguish factual reporting today.
Can't tell if you're referring to media outlets or AI companies here.
I do remember this incident - it was an embarrassment for the outlets that jumped on that story. Especially because the general public has come to know there is a overriding tendency towards sensationalism.
But surely this is very different from actual outright propaganda operations?
I'm talking about the media companies. AI companies aren't any better at it, but at least they don't go around sanctimoniously claiming to be the source of truth in the same way as journalists do.
And it isn't different than outright propaganda operations because it is an outright propaganda operation. If you read the link in my comment, you will see that the report is just repeating claims from the government nearly verbatim.
I'm not going to take up the mantle of trying to dissuade you from your beliefs, but needless to say if you think that equating CNNs sensationalism-for-views model with the likes of Musk actively trying to dismantle Wikipedia [0] because he wants to rewrite reality (nevermind what Grok is currently doing [1]), then you need to have a hard look in the mirror.
Ok, that's a little better. The first link was just referring to him starting his own. I still think "dismantle" is not an accurate description for asking people not to fund it, but it's within margin of error. I'm paywalled, though, so can't read the whole thing.
"Charitable" is irrelevant to my reference because "competitor" is a term completely devoid of any indication of the quality of the product.
> The first link was just referring to him starting his own.
He's pushing a platform that uses AI to generate content that's riddled with far-right misinformation. The context for him doing this is because he didn't like that Wikipedia now chronicles the very real fact that he made a Nazi salute. This doesn't constitute just starting an alternative, this is actively pushing an agenda of misinformation, while demonizing platforms that he doesn't like. He can't buy Wikipedia like he did with Twitter, so he's pushing to undermine & harm it, via defunding or other means (see government threats to "investigate" while Musk was running DOGE).
> "Charitable" is irrelevant to my reference because "competitor" is a term completely devoid of any indication of the quality of the product.
I was being nice; your characterizing of Musk's platform as a genuine "competitor" is BS. Every indication is that he's doing this because he wants to choose what constitutes fact and what doesn't.
