AI Stats

 

Truth is in decline in this country.  That said, truth was never a priority with politicians, newspapers or advertisers.  Today it is ever harder to find truth.  Objective journalism died when the press decided clickbait was what was required.  This because the advertisers look at the number of clicks on the news pages before offering their dubious products for sale.  Lower paper sales leads to less actual journalists and those employed spend rather too much time searching various social medias for items to pretend are newsworthy.  Small attention grabbing stories, encouraged by ridiculous half truth headlines are the norm, and of course there is nothing there when you click on the page.

Andy Arthur's Edinburgh page has a good example of this.  A claim that Conan-Doyle, the Sherlock Holmes writer, had been in a pub in Newington called the Salisbury Arms was disputed.  Andy's excellent research proved that while Conan-Doyle passed away in 1930 the pub only opened in 1970, yet the media, making use of Google and other such 'research' claimed he visited the place.  This comes from the robots from all large organisations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, all stealing your writing, not checking to see if it is correct, and passing it on via AI and such things as Google answers.  AI then finds its own answers and repeats them without checking.  

Add to this the many fake online posts coming from Iran, St Petersburg, China and anywhere else where trouble can be caused, and checking posts on social media requires great care.  It does appear however, that newspaper staff are not bothering, or are not allowed, to check stories.  Clickbait rules.

I noticed the stats on offer on Blogger claim I have had 56.7k visitors.  I ask how many are those crawlers from various AI merchants taking my deep and correct research and sending it around the world, much to the amusement of those who might know the facts better than I.  No law can stop it, these people can always get around it, many of course do not care about UK laws, the North Koreans sitting in darkened Korea might read just to see what the other side is like, and attempt to destroy it while wishing they were over there, the Law means nothing.  

Will AI owners pay for the copywrite works they steal?  Of course not...

Banned Again

Banned again!

Musk may believe in 'Free Speech' but his AI machinery does not.  

A simple phrase, indeed a correct one, earns an instant ban from the auto machine as it does not understand the nuances of life on Twitter.  Note, 'Twitter' banned me, not 'X.'  There was no mention of 'X' in the AI reply.

It was a simple picture of Princess Anne, dubbing Jacob Rees-Mogg with a sword, as she 'knighted him.

I, representing the nation suggested 'Chop his head off woman!' but find AI consider this an encouragement to violence.

Surely not?

I naturally appealed against this calumny.  

I made it clear that I was speaking on behalf of the nation and this could not be called 'incitement to violence,' when it is clearly 'incitement to justice!'  AI did not agree.  Clearly this is a machine, clearly a human operator would have agreed with me!

So, do I once again appeal, or do I obey the AI and remove the offending, they say, post?  I am in a quandary here.  I see no reason to remove a perfectly good post, nor do I see an urgent desire within to return to 'Twitter.'   

If I do I may as well remove the other offending post, that offended a gay woman, on my other name and return both into action.  The advantage being I can spend time agreeing with myself then...