This has very little to do with the criticism given by the first commenter. And you can use AI and do this, they are not in any way exclusive.
nimpnin
joined 1 year ago
You are way too insulting and aggressive to have a discussion with.
You spread misinformation and somehow you're also the victim here.
Apropos the edit: No you're not getting away with this. The linked article is copy pasted from the Reuters article. It is the Reuters article.
So what you're taking issue with is one of the most reputable Western news sources doing their job, as clinically and unbiasedly as they always do. They don't editorialize.
You are acting like one of those Russia bots in the comment sections that we all are so familiar with.
MOSCOW, May 18 (Reuters) - The founder of the Telegram messaging app said on Sunday he had refused a request by a Western government, which he did not name but appeared to imply was France, to silence conservative voices in Romania ahead of a presidential election run-off there.
The story is identical to the one on reuters.com. There is no propagandistic phrasing of things, the article states what different parties claim, and refers to the French foreign ministry, which makes it undoubtably relevant. I don't know how that can be possibly misconstrued as biased or factually shakey.
So thank you for eurofied mccarthyism. Really doesn't make it any easier to navigate around Russian propaganda when you pollute the information ecosystem. And also voids your reasonable criticism of Telegram and Durov BTW.
Maybe criticize Durov then instead?
I mean sure but I really wouldn't like a random foreign country requesting cencorship to sway my elections even if it was to combat bad things™. Though it's not like Russia isn't doing the same thing too.
Yeah but that’s not what we are expecting people to do.
In our extremely complicated world, most thinking relies on trusting sources. You can’t independently study and derive most things.
Otherwise everybody should do their own research about vaccines. But the reasonable thing is to trust a lot of other, more knowledgeable people.
Things are weirder than they seem on the surface.
A math professor collegue of mine calls extremely restrictive use of language ”rigor”, for example.
Independent thought? All relevant thought is highly dependent of other people and their thoughts.
That’s exactly why I bring this up. Having systems that teach people to think in a similar way enable us to build complex stuff and have a modern society.
That’s why it’s really weird to hear this ”people should think for themselves” criticism of AI. It’s a similar justification to antivaxxers saying you ”should do your own research”.
Surely there are better reasons to oppose AI?
If you think your comment and this are the same thing, then I don't know what to say.