• quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    That’s called collecting empirical evidence, I can respect that, hahahahahah.

    What puzzles me is, did anyone watch it before publishing? Who approves these things?

    • lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Referencing the telephone game does not prove anything here. The telephone game is shows that humans are not good at copying something exactly without changes, which computers are better at. But the question here is if AI can achieve deeper understanding of a work, which is needed to produce a good summary. This is something humans are far better at. The AI screws up the summary here in ways that no reasonable person who has watched the TV series (or played the games) would ever screw up.

      • swlabr@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        sure, computers are “better” at “copying something exactly”, but why do that when you could swede instead

      • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah. If I wanted to perfectly reproduce the original series in a different time and location I would use a machine rather than trying to get my local theater troupe to do it, I guess. Therefore AI completely and blatantly fucking up a totally different task isn’t a monumental waste of time and energy?