@zkfcfbzr
@lemmy.worldCould be that for sure - like I game a bit every day, but if I was doing this same project, all of my screenshots from the past three weeks would have been from Crash Bandicoot 4 - and the three weeks before that would all be from Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1+2. I basically just beat a level a day. If other people were chiming in every day maybe I'd mix it up.
It could also be self-selection bias - like, I would never do a project like this because I know it would be super repetitive. Maybe they were willing to do it because they already played a hyper-varied selection?
You have more variety in the games you play than I have in the foods I eat
How many of these 54 have been unique? What are you doing that you play a different game almost every day?
I agree both that there is a nuance in the difference strong enough to make the tweet in the post misleading/incorrect, and that Jill Stein is still nonetheless actively a bad-faith candidate who wishes for Trump to win
Would the southern shape here also qualify as a triangle?
What if you went the short way instead of the long way, creating the spherical triangle people usually use - then is the "outside" portion of the triangle itself another triangle?
In Jeopardy, if you provide an unintended answer that's still technically correct, and still fits the category, they'll still mark you as correct - or if they fail to, they may rectify the mistake with a change to the scores after the next commercial break.
What was the category? If it was vague enough I'd guess they'd accept either "dilithium" or "antimatter", but if it's something like "Fictional substances" then by traditional Jeopardy rules only dilithium would fit.
Jeopardy clues in general reward people who have shallow knowledge in lots of topics. As a rule of thumb when giving clues on specific topics, those clues will be answerable by an enthusiastic layman - you never really need to be an expert to get them right. If they ask a clue in a subject you do happen to be an expert in, you'll occasionally notice they get the details wrong - rarely even to the point of judging responses incorrectly.
filtered out of post counts
Revolutionary. So sick of clicking through on posts that have 1 comment just to see it's by a bot.
Is every other message there something you typed? Or is it arguing with itself? Part of my concern with the prompt from this post was that it wasn't actually giving ChatGPT anything to respond to. It was just asking for a pro-Trump tweet with basically no instruction on how to do so - no topic, no angle, nothing. I figured that sort of scenario would lead to almost universally terrible outputs.
I did just try it out myself though. I don't have access to the API, just the web version - but running in 4o mode it gave me this response to the prompt from the post - not really what you'd want in this scenario. I then immediately gave it this prompt (rest of the response here). Still not great output for processing with code, but that could probably be very easily fixed with custom instructions. Those tweets are actually much better quality than I expected.
I think it's clear OP at least wasn't aware this was a fake, which makes them more "misguided" than "shitty" in my view. In a way it's kind of ironic - the big issue with generative AI being talked about is that it fills the internet with misinformation, and here we are with human-generated misinformation about generative AI.
Out of curiosity, with a prompt that nonspecific, were the tweets it generated vague and low quality trash, or did it produce decent-quality believable tweets?
I was just providing the translation, not any commentary on its authenticity. I do recognize that it would be completely trivial to fake this though. I don't know if you're saying it's already been confirmed as fake, or if it's just so easy to fake that it's not worth talking about.
I don't think the prompt itself is an issue though. Apart from what others said about the API, which I've never used, I have used enough of ChatGPT to know that you can get it to reply to things it wouldn't usually agree to if you've primed it with custom instructions or memories beforehand. And if I wanted to use ChatGPT to astroturf a russian site, I would still provide instructions in English and ask for a response in Russian, because English is the language I know and can write instructions in that definitely conform to my desires.
What I'd consider the weakest part is how nonspecific the prompt is. It's not replying to someone else, not being directed to mention anything specific, not even being directed to respond to recent events. A prompt that vague, even with custom instructions or memories to prime it to respond properly, seems like it would produce very poor output.