Som mångårig medlem i både SJF och Sveriges Författarförbund ser jag fram mot riklig ersättning efter den rättsprocess/förlikning som bör följa på den stämningsansökan mot KB som jag utgår från snart kommer att lämnas in. https://www.journalisten.se/ledare/ai-bola
Macron a des raisons bien précises de s’inquiéter de la “menace Trump”.
Voici mon analyse, traduite et publiée par Courrier International. 🌎 #geopolitique #Trump
Greenland ice melt surges unprecedentedly amid warming #Greenland
Oja .... Vanavond mestdebat.
Is al even bezig...
#nlpol #mestdebat #debat
Apocalypse Not: Science Journal 'Nature' Retracts Catastrophic Climate Change Study (Jameson Mitrovich/The Washington Free Beacon)
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/apocalypse-not-science-journal-nature-retracts-catastrophic-climate-change-study/
http://www.memeorandum.com/251204/p106#a251204p106
"Es! War! Keine! Notwehr!“ – René Martens erinnert Journalisten an etwas Altmodisches: Fakten. Wer Lügen gleichberechtigt neben belegte Wirklichkeit stellt, informiert nicht, sondern verwirrt. Das #Altpapier zeigt, wie diese Praxis den Journalismus selbst beschädigt. #Medienkritik
"Pesticides found in 70% of European soils, harming beneficial life: Study"
#Europe #Pesticides #Soil
The headline should be: ❝AI vendor’s AI-generated analysis claims AI generated reviews for AI-generated papers at AI conference❞
To be clear, I give great credence to the claims of the humans in the article who thought they’d received an AI-generated review. I bet •they’re• correct. It’s Nature I’m coming after here.
A journalistic institution would investigate that claim, track down the reviewer in question, get to the bottom of the story. A PR outlet would just repeat some vendor’s product claims as fact and click “publish.”
Which one is Nature?
/end