4 ms·
What a load of alarmist nonsense. Who is the royal "we" in this article's title? Clueless Wall Street Journal reading "victims"? Or just curious people that sig
by jillesvangurp 4y ago
What a load of alarmist nonsense. Who is the royal "we" in this article's title? Clueless Wall Street Journal reading "victims"? Or just curious people that signed up for this. I believe it's the latter.
If you don't want it, don't sign up for it, or opt in. Refrain from using it. Very simple.
- pixl97 4y agoRight, just like 'we' can avoid pollution and traffic from automobiles....
- varelse 4y ago[dead]
- manimino 4y agoYep. Standard clickbait formula, stir up emotions, add no new information. So easy an AI could do it.
- politician 4y ago“We” refers to the WSJ hive mind of employees. In the dark ages before ChatGPT, the only access individuals had to large language models was through the editing process that newsrooms use to harness the power of dozens of human brains. These archaic processes had severe bandwidth limitations that prevented the level of individualized interaction that we all benefit from today.
- rnosov 4y agoI think it's "we" as in "real humans" vs them "AI chatbots". It would be easy to avoid them at the moment but might be a lot harder in the future (in a way it becomes difficult to use physical cash in many parts of the world). In a curious twist of fate, I suspect this article will be probably fed to train the next generation of AI models though.