You can also just post the 4-5 data items without claiming that this is low or high credibility or bias. Then let the people make the decision. Like this maybe:
“Based on source X, this source media bias is:
Methodology of X is at: “
I find it quite common (and confusing) for certain news types like policy, eg “party A reverses the disapproval to oppose the once-unacceptable ban”
I mean, this article is from 2022, which claims to use seaborn but not really. It really shows their effort, even before the whole AI hype …
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/how-to-create-a-stacked-bar-plot-in-seaborn/
I’m also curious. A quick search came up with these. Not sure which one is most reliable/updated
Many things are called “AI models” nowadays (unfortunately due to the hype). I wouldn’t dismiss the tools and methodology yet.
That said, the article (or the researchers) did a disservice to the analysis by not including a link to the report (and code) that outlines the methodology and how the distribution of similarities look. I couldn’t find a link in the article and a quick search didn’t turn up anything.
you should try to ask the same question using xAI / Grok if possible. May also ask ChatGPT about Altman as well
welp, guess you’re right. It’s not common but not just a few someone’s either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_breastfeeding
Lol ads that can be engineered into DNA, so that they can be passed down for generations.
@inspxtr
@lemmy.world