the artificial opinions

i was looking who would be the first this year in the media to resurrect something about this case, i found an article from october , 2023 that had fed some questions into chatgpt, one of the better known names in the world of artificial intelligence. 

the online paper from spain, yes they have more than one, even in that country. and they tell even that the chatgpt only has knowledge until 2021. 

it still got into a disappointing exercise, it even reach into a just nothing found.

the original is in spanish of course, but it looks not a bad translation if you use google.

and as it is only the second i found until now, i think it deserves its space. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

the first example before was the rubbish thingy, not even worth to be called a write up from the academia website. 

but does it help these ai experiences, i do think not that much, it just depends which hand is feeding or allowing it to what it can feed itself with, that will restrict it to a kind of ai opinion. 
still it is getting used more and more to write news articles, and the more common ai software must be hard for the uk media to use in this case, because there still is a living soul needed to scratch out all stuff that call out of any critical stuff about the parents. they can not risk that. 

but it means also that is is even more into getting in buyer beware mode, because a name above an article would no longer be the one that have written it, but only have been editing it.

i think even that is the reason the infamous imogen that writes stuff about this case, who is a well experienced editor, at least her linkdin let us believe that, could tell us portugal is an island. a mistake hardly even school age children would not easily make. but if we go to the name of the organisation that owned most of pdl at the time the ocean club, that can explain it, many times when i was searching for pictures to look at different angles in the area, you would end up, by using google, in other area's of the world. like an ocean club on the bahama's and well that is on an island of course.

so even if the basic information that the ia bot is feeding itself on, it does not mean it can make that right conclusion.

and it is early days. there is still no self think in all that feeding the things at all. it are still just human minds that decide what that feed will be. only it is ,more up to the reader to look out for the mistakes that will walk in it all by that. also it helps to understand that the more lazy media no longer pay humble reporters but simply bots with early ai to write stuff, and they would not like to tell us that, so they just put the name of an editor under the stuff. 

so now we do not only end up with full fantasy works, misunderstandings, wrongly copied/nicked stuff, d-notice restricted views, translation havoc, but also faulty bots that play ai. and too lazy editors that can not read what they put their names on of course, after using ai software. reader beware!

This doesn't paint a rosy picture for the future, does it? AI will take over the health service, education, and the history book, among other things.   My set of three 1970's dictionaries is invaluable for reference purposes; when   old books are no longer available, a lot of historical fact will be forever lost.

Snipped from CaKeLoveR's post ^^^
A lot of historical facts will be forever lost.

They will, English history is already being altered to suit the narrative.

Yes, it's white history in general which is being  changed. The white world of great inventors, architects, pioneers of medicine, leading contributors to the arts, and improving the lives of those ingrates who want to claim these accomplishments as their own. They have wiped   out William Wilberforce and the slave trade abolitionists, who, along with the servicemen and women of two world wars, would now wonder why they bothered.

the problem lies more in how easy it looks to make use of it, but a lot of ai will only use what is already there, and it has also great uses, like being able to work through a mass of information in research to get a selection.

but what is there now, is nothing that can think for itself, the intelligent part is simply not there. the problem is mostly when people get to lazy to check the results, or make the input to biased by select human minds. 
and when it is used to select others to let them work with these results, the format facebook does use, but even google searches are guided by your earlier preferences. 

so there is a big risk you get different realities, and all sides get their own selected information primed for them. that is not a new thing, we already has and still have that in politics and religions of course. people always have been part of groups in society that could choose in what they liked to promote. 

and it is already a problem, that good pr strategies could give a louder voice to minorities that only have their own views in mind, not that of all others. we have seen enough of these the last years. social media is already much in use, the pr in it is just trowing a ball and it does not matter what team you are in, as long as the ball is played it gets attention. more and more of the stuff grows from social media onto the news outlets. it does not matter if you are positive or negative about the subject or matter, it is the attention span they need, and attention span is what pays for it by showing us adverts and promotions of stuff. 

and it is much cheaper to use even the first generation software, than paying reporters, they have no need oif a payment, no offices, do not strike, be sick or just stupid.

only you will see that as lesser people are part of bringing in news, more wil be just reused and taken from social media comments. so it becomes possible to even getting steering into that. most news footage are already from social platforms, hardly payed for. 

but it becomes even worse in cases like this one, because you can easily make a selling product that not offend a advertiser, so it will be another way corporates will dictate the opinion that will comes out to a public. they already do that. it is already pretty common that wordings can not be used, or the advertiser will be lost. so nasty things as sexual abuse, child abuse, murder, or that kind will go lost. 

and in this case we seen what is possible, books will no longer be translated, because only a snipping comment of we would go to court and after you is enough. even when there is a verdict of the highest court in europe that pleads against such legality. but it would be hard to find a publisher that would take the risk. 

or the strange institution of a d-notice, that can be out there, but you can not even speak about its existence. 

but names could be written wrongly and that could mean you can no longer find the right person behind that name. and it is even pretty easy to let specific names be excluded from a software program. so you can whip out the role of that person, and think what happened if your name is just the same in another field, that would be excluded too. 

things as deep fakes are even worse, but have still little to do with ai for the time being. and because of the race to the bottom in exclusive or first with the news out, that could be horrible. 

for the short term it helps to look at the names written, like i did with the imogen island saga. because it would be completely strange for a european human, that had gotten a job at a news outlet to escape the stupidity of that. when i looked her up, she was not named as a reporter, but as a editor. editors usually do not write much for the larger news outlets, they only work with stuff others send in. 
all you need from that is , that is was already unlikely they would hire a editor to write stupid articles, it is not they have not already enough donkey's to do that. 
my own experience with using google search, without putting mccann or madeleine mccann in the searchbar with it, was enough to get the idea how it ended up in that article. 

the will have need of an editor of course, because there can be the risk some of the ai does pick up on places like this forum and many other places that think differently than the preferred line in the uk still. also most uk news outlets are vested already in a certain line to promote, they only could disqualify their own view on it.

but it will be a point of attention to look for the use of modern techniques that disforme all kinds of news in this case. there can be a day a deep fake of the mccanns are confessing up the truth on what looks like a bbc live broadcast. 

think about it, how easy there are slipping in the traditional april fools jokes. 

even the old books are never been flawless, and had the need to find another source to back it all up.  i still use all my old books. most to get back to where the stuff got into my memory, but i usually have a habit to look in material written after the date of publishing, to check if we found out if some bits or more have new findings. i still like books better. they also keep much better, i have seen so much already gone lost because the floppies and discs does not work anymore. the external hard drive burned out, the same with music, i have records that are over 100 years old, still to play in the original quality, but many cd's do not work flawless anymore. so much ever written on the internet is already lost for us. 

and printed material is much harder to change indeed, what is printed is there as long as the paper hold it. 

and we easy forget we grew up with paper and printed stuff, our trust in the it is written on the internet is often much to great. it is never a one off. and it is the one that change the piece its decision if they let you know. 

and i still got a lot of official press releases by email, so i often have the original source, and when i see what a national news outlet makes of it, i already often am frowning quite a lot. it is not only the talent of reworking the text, but also that reading what is there that is no longer up to standard. besides you sometimes do need a lot of back ground in specific matter to even understand what is written about. 

in this case itself definition and the meaning of some can also be very different, but it does play also a big role in how people start to form opinions. the not understanding that 5a was not that different at all from just any apartment block. or the meaning of a resort. the juridical stuff looks only hard, most is even very easy, because it lacks all fantasy, and usually the law comes with the specific meaning and definition in the law itself. the complications get in, when it is used in court. still a shame it is not part of the standard curriculum in schools. it could save so many time and conflicts. 

and it does not help that we use the same words for very different meanings, often even different in the circles you live and work in. so when we have to deal also with made up stuff too, it only get into rubbish.

onehand wrote:the problem lies more in how easy it looks to make use of it, but a lot of ai will only use what is already there, and it has also great uses, like being able to work through a mass of information in research to get a selection.

but what is there now, is nothing that can think for itself, the intelligent part is simply not there. the problem is mostly when people get to lazy to check the results, or make the input to biased by select human minds. 
and when it is used to select others to let them work with these results, the format facebook does use, but even google searches are guided by your earlier preferences. 

so there is a big risk you get different realities, and all sides get their own selected information primed for them. that is not a new thing, we already has and still have that in politics and religions of course. people always have been part of groups in society that could choose in what they liked to promote. 

and it is already a problem, that good pr strategies could give a louder voice to minorities that only have their own views in mind, not that of all others. we have seen enough of these the last years. social media is already much in use, the pr in it is just trowing a ball and it does not matter what team you are in, as long as the ball is played it gets attention. more and more of the stuff grows from social media onto the news outlets. it does not matter if you are positive or negative about the subject or matter, it is the attention span they need, and attention span is what pays for it by showing us adverts and promotions of stuff. 

and it is much cheaper to use even the first generation software, than paying reporters, they have no need oif a payment, no offices, do not strike, be sick or just stupid.

only you will see that as lesser people are part of bringing in news, more wil be just reused and taken from social media comments. so it becomes possible to even getting steering into that. most news footage are already from social platforms, hardly payed for. 

but it becomes even worse in cases like this one, because you can easily make a selling product that not offend a advertiser, so it will be another way corporates will dictate the opinion that will comes out to a public. they already do that. it is already pretty common that wordings can not be used, or the advertiser will be lost. so nasty things as sexual abuse, child abuse, murder, or that kind will go lost. 

and in this case we seen what is possible, books will no longer be translated, because only a snipping comment of we would go to court and after you is enough. even when there is a verdict of the highest court in europe that pleads against such legality. but it would be hard to find a publisher that would take the risk. 

or the strange institution of a d-notice, that can be out there, but you can not even speak about its existence. 

but names could be written wrongly and that could mean you can no longer find the right person behind that name. and it is even pretty easy to let specific names be excluded from a software program. so you can whip out the role of that person, and think what happened if your name is just the same in another field, that would be excluded too. 

things as deep fakes are even worse, but have still little to do with ai for the time being. and because of the race to the bottom in exclusive or first with the news out, that could be horrible. 

for the short term it helps to look at the names written, like i did with the imogen island saga. because it would be completely strange for a european human, that had gotten a job at a news outlet to escape the stupidity of that. when i looked her up, she was not named as a reporter, but as a editor. editors usually do not write much for the larger news outlets, they only work with stuff others send in. 
all you need from that is , that is was already unlikely they would hire a editor to write stupid articles, it is not they have not already enough donkey's to do that. 
my own experience with using google search, without putting mccann or madeleine mccann in the searchbar with it, was enough to get the idea how it ended up in that article. 

the will have need of an editor of course, because there can be the risk some of the ai does pick up on places like this forum and many other places that think differently than the preferred line in the uk still. also most uk news outlets are vested already in a certain line to promote, they only could disqualify their own view on it.

but it will be a point of attention to look for the use of modern techniques that disforme all kinds of news in this case. there can be a day a deep fake of the mccanns are confessing up the truth on what looks like a bbc live broadcast. 

think about it, how easy there are slipping in the traditional april fools jokes. 

even the old books are never been flawless, and had the need to find another source to back it all up.  i still use all my old books. most to get back to where the stuff got into my memory, but i usually have a habit to look in material written after the date of publishing, to check if we found out if some bits or more have new findings. i still like books better. they also keep much better, i have seen so much already gone lost because the floppies and discs does not work anymore. the external hard drive burned out, the same with music, i have records that are over 100 years old, still to play in the original quality, but many cd's do not work flawless anymore. so much ever written on the internet is already lost for us. 

and printed material is much harder to change indeed, what is printed is there as long as the paper hold it. 

and we easy forget we grew up with paper and printed stuff, our trust in the it is written on the internet is often much to great. it is never a one off. and it is the one that change the piece its decision if they let you know. 

and i still got a lot of official press releases by email, so i often have the original source, and when i see what a national news outlet makes of it, i already often am frowning quite a lot. it is not only the talent of reworking the text, but also that reading what is there that is no longer up to standard. besides you sometimes do need a lot of back ground in specific matter to even understand what is written about. 

in this case itself definition and the meaning of some can also be very different, but it does play also a big role in how people start to form opinions. the not understanding that 5a was not that different at all from just any apartment block. or the meaning of a resort. the juridical stuff looks only hard, most is even very easy, because it lacks all fantasy, and usually the law comes with the specific meaning and definition in the law itself. the complications get in, when it is used in court. still a shame it is not part of the standard curriculum in schools. it could save so many time and conflicts. 

and it does not help that we use the same words for very different meanings, often even different in the circles you live and work in. so when we have to deal also with made up stuff too, it only get into rubbish.

When I asked ChatGPT about Jim Gamble's premature announcement of Maddie's disappearance, the bot gave a very interesting response, saying that it was not aware of such an announcement and that the investigation and public awareness of her disappearance only started after the parents had announced the disappearance to the police and media. Can't disagree with that.

Even more interestingly, when I rephrased my question and asked the bot if it was aware that a CEOP page announcing the disappearance had been archived by the WBM on April 30th, it responded that my information was "correct" and that it was "possible that information about her disappearance was circulating online before it became widely known". 

So at least Carter-Ruck, Clarence Mitchell and Jim Gamble haven't got their claws into ChatGPT quite yet.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thanks dean.

and how many users of theses early ai programs will keep it up to search for other sources. or did what you, dean did, ask the question in a different way. 

i still have not starting to make use of it, i like to search in different ways and manners, not only rephrasing questions, but also keep more open questions, because the results of search engines could deliver true gems, in other stuff, the strange thing is google has a bit of a problem with other languages, but that is solved usually as soon as your use extra search tools. i was already on the look out for the use of ai in the common media about this case, and i got this one as a suggestion when reading another article.

still i get the idea that many subjects can profit from the pr one side gets, it looks far more democratic, so if the majority of articles is of the kind the innocent parents, that will count more, than another view that gets less publicity. 

and the big difference between searching by search engines and the early ai software is that search engines did give a result you can use also as a reference, and that is lacking in the ai side. and in this case it does matter because the news is certainly from the uk is compromised and full of bias. 

most search engines also do make use of algorithms from earlier searches you made on your account, but what is decided as maybe less of interest often is still there lower on the pages. where ai software is fed with where it can look and will look. it is still fed by human minds these days. and it is hard to trace back what they can look at. 

think about sources that can be used, but also restricted to a specific number of years, the result will be much other information is not to be used to give the answer to your question. 
and when it got used by a account you easily get the result is fed by your own bias too. 

how easily will people who use it accept the answer given as must be the truth. people always have had different approaches, even in the days of having to use the encyclopedia i always got easily distracted by other things around the stuff i was looking for. i always had multiple encyclopedias available, so that could give a different look at subjects in history. that is not changed by using google and other search engines. 
and an encyclopedia did not often give references too. 

i am an overly curious person, meaning i do like to check beyond common thingies. i simply can not read an article and take it for granted, i will look into who did write the stuff, look if there are other views on it. how much room for bias is there. i also like to trace all kinds of information back to sources. 
not so much the people who are a source for something, but where what is said coming from. 
the internet made that for me much more possible to do.

but we are also all children of a time, and the problem with giving that way thinking in the hands of a bit of software, you can not even trace beforehand in what its filters are, what would that mean also for the history of cases like this one. are we really in 10 years time have still a route there to look in other opinions, that are not made up by ai. 
maybe because there is hardly a known case like this one, that already has a artificially promoted history. 
there is hardly anything rational in articles from the uk news outlets. they have no independent sources at all, often not named. something we can see and read for ourselves, but how will that work in the filters of ai. 

the only right answer of ai on dean his questions would have been restricted to; this is an unsolved case, there is too little sound and unbiased information available to give a correct answer to your question. 

instead it tells it has no access to the information, or its set filters would not allow the use of the needed material that is out there to give a better answer. but it also insinuated your sources are and must be bollocks, even before this ai can take a look at the material. 

and it means the ai already is fallen for a stance too, the answer is just the result of the way the minds that fed the ai with acceptable sources in the opinion of these minds.

Sorry, I posted ChatGPT's first answer twice. Here's its second answer to my rephrased question.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

well that is indeed not carter ruck save as an answer. 

not much logic in that answer too, it is still a unclear adventure, i still have the download in html of that page somewhere. my own nerd in all it things, did see one point it could still be a faulty grab, because there was a line in it, that ordered the wayback machine to grab all of the site for a period between 30 april 2007 and september 2009, and he called it that it could happened that the first grab all was dumped at the starting date. but to be sure he would have liked to look at more pages from that starting date. 

the true date it was grabbed online could have been may 13 2007. 

it does not happen that often i have a very lucky grap in my old notes. it took my guy ages to look at it, and he called it a very small glitch as most likely. so i lost the interest in it after that conversation. 
and in 99.9% when such things happened no one would worry about it of course, not even look for it, it is more important to get a real answer because of this case itself. i do not like it when organisations as way back machine and even more ceop would not put out a official statement about it. both did not very much in that. 
so yes it is getting attention on social media from time to time. and this case had already enough complications to keep unnecessary ones just out of it. 

nice to see that ai can not make a lot from it too. 

but when we loose sight of what information, like archives of papers ai will start using, there can be walking in a lot of really false information. older stuff was often never corrected, because you had hardly a say in that at all. and how much of the older stuff about this case is still available somewhere ai can make use of it at all. 

what can ai check truly, and how will it rate the books out there, would they have a way to choose what one is the most truthful one, and will that end up to be amaral, or summers and his bird, or even worse danny collins.

the wayback adventure does not have anything to do with artificial news about this case of course. 

so maybe we could pick that topic up in verdi's suggestion. 

i always had the idea, and i am a person who escapes computer codes as much as i can. i understand the basics, but i cannot find a urge to do much with that kind of stuff. 

but i have a quite simple idea better suited minds could maybe make some cheese off. 

i learned in court during a civil case how easy it was to replace pictures with the free picture service websites at that time. if you uploaded a picture onto a forum, you could later by keeping both sites open replace the picture by another one. in my naughty days i told that trick to some others who had no longer a voice on said forum, and some have been able to use text on a picture to tell there side of the saga. all by making a picture of that text and renamed it in the picture folder under the same link as the original innocent picture. 

so for the ones that want to look for someone who could have been able to change the outlook of that webpage, maybe the same approach could have worked then at that time also. 

there is in the html code easy to find there was indeed a webpage folder named with that date in april, but could there be an option to fiddle around and replace the madeleine page on that date. all codes available are from after that could have happened. 

and yes, i do know of many cases hackers have been able to infiltrate all kind of stuff into the source codes too, i only have no idea what the wayback machine used around that time in may/june 2015 it all happend. 

the source steve marsden is indeed known for a lot of havoc, you can still find it easily back by searching on google. 

and this would or could be indeed something that becomes old school, because it was mostly and still is mostly done by humans, but there is still a reason to connect it to the nasty possibilities, when ai is getting more in use. 

most of the older stuff is not that watertight at all, that infiltration and play havoc with what once was voiced to replaced by completely different kind of texts is something i have worries about. for a human it would be hard to have the time to do it massively and most are hardly that perfect at all. computers have no such weaknesses.  

people are always easy believing what they are told, but would it still be possible to look for an other opinion.

remember how easy people believed that just someone on twitter was talking nasty about the mccanns. 
all they did was copying a few messages, not even all hers. i had not really that much interest in twitter in that time, but i wanted to look for myself how bad that person must have been, so i downloaded all her tweets, and looked through them, hardly anything would or could be called nasty at all. there was hardly anything that stood out as offensive, critical, but not nasty. 

but i still could take a look at the real deal, what if changing the originals would make that different, it would change a lot of opinions. i do not fall easily by what the tabloids produce, most is easy to check. 

today we had a news message, that our dutch national library no longer will give access to commercial ai companies to crawl their archives. as an institute they have made agreements with the copy right holders for the use in their way of all material they have in stock.
there is no agreement about letting it be used to train or let it be used by commercial ai companies. 

the bad side of this will be that original material will not be used to make the answers. and this material you can go in and ask to see it with your own eyes. so you can look at the originals. 

so this could mean that crappy organisations and publishers will be used in stead. the result can be that a netflix production will be used instead of the pj files. 
it gets into a new form of the winners is the one to write the history. 
i think that is something i would not like to see in the history of criminal cases at all. 

now we do know we can not all that is out there presented as true stuff can be trusted to be just that for a 100%. we can keep some margins for that in our ways of thinking. but if the complete background is also influenced by ai, would that be enough.