Comment by gruez
16 days ago
I don't see how "experts" are relevant under OP's framework unless they're did the primary research themselves. Otherwise they're just regurgitating someone else's research. The "oh there's humans involved so that gets pass" excuse doesn't work either, because humans were also involved in training the AI.
Please reread the comment you are replying to. I will wait.
—-
Now that you have reread the initial comment, do you think that “experts” was the important part? Or do you think maybe it was the compensation for their work that matters?
>Please reread the comment you are replying to. I will wait.
If you're going to post thinly veiled implications that I didn't read your comment, you should be pretty damn sure that you make it look like you read my comment, which it doesn't seem like you did. The second of my comment said:
>The "oh there's humans involved so that gets pass" excuse doesn't work either, because humans were also involved in training the AI.
If you did read it, you sure did a poor job at rebutting it, leaving it unaddressed and preferring to waste words on writing snarky remarks instead.
> If you're going to post thinly veiled implications that I didn't read your comment
It was a statement, not an implication.
You still haven't replied to the point in the original comment about compensating the people who do this work, so I think it's quite obvious that you haven't read it.
2 replies →