-Fred Hampton was a black activist from Chicago -- an extraordinary speaker, youth organizer for the NAACP.
-He joined the Black Panthers and shone so brightly that he was made chair of the Chicago chapter when he was only 20.
-He founded the Rainbow Coalition, which brought together Black and Latino activists and radical anti-poverty Catholics. He forged an alliance among major Chicago street gangs to help them make peace and work for social change.
-In 1967, when he was just 19, Hampton was identified by the FBI as a “radical threat.” The FBI tried to subvert his activities in Chicago, sowing disinformation to get the groups he’d drawn together to distrust each other, and getting an FBI plant next to him as a bodyguard.
-(This is part of an illegal FBI program called COINTELPRO, which aimed to paint black civil rights activists (among others) as violent and threatening. If you’ve only seen pictures of the Black Panthers as armed and dangerous revolutionaries, and never heard of their children’s breakfast program, their community health clinics, or their “copwatch” patrols, this is why. It’s because COINTELPRO was a highly successful work of political propaganda.)
-On December 3, 1969, Hampton taught a political education course at a local church, and then several Panthers gathered at his apartment for a late dinner. One of them was the FBI plant bodyguard, who drugged Hampton.
-At 4:45 AM on December 4, a squad of Chicago Police officers and FBI agents with a warrant to search for weapons stormed the apartment. Investigations later showed they fired between 90 and 99 times. The Panther on security detail, Mark Clark, was holding a shotgun. He was shot, and the gun went off into the ceiling. This was the only shot fired by the Panthers.
-Fred Hampton, in another room, didn’t awaken. He was shot in his bed. Twice, in the head, at point-blank range. He was 21.
-Four weeks after witnessing Hampton's death, his finance Deborah Johnson gave birth to their son, Fred Hampton Jr. That’s him in the photograph, visiting the grave of a father who died before he was born. A resting place riddled with bullets.
Then find an answer to a question but warn I haven't researched enough to know how legit it was?
No thanks. I'm fine with my effort on a 10 min break unpaid break. how much effort did you put in?
Complaining is easy and pointless. At least my effort wasnt "none". Where is your ten minutes?
As for the concept "every bullet is a badge of honor" I disagree. If the stone is unreadable there's nothing to look into. On the other side there is extreme power in "well rebuild, Everytime. We haven't forgotten either"
That's just my view. Take it or leave it.
Sometimes a lazy answer is worse than no answer
Give me one example btw? "Sometimes a lazy answer is worse than no answer"
What are your examples? Lol. Complaining is useless. I provided answers.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/17909563
When given an answer, people will trust it, even when told not to trust it.
Not an example
Except they do. That's how brains work. Wrong answers will stick in people's heads even when they know it's wrong. Then, later on, the "wrongness" fades and you're left with only familiarity for that answer, which is used as a proxy for correctness. Generally speaking, your brain primarily uses familiarity when assessing information, not strict logic or interrogation.
Then finding an example should be easy.
Besides it's irrelevant. You are suggesting someone years from is going to remember the web address I linked but forgot my advice of "check out if it's legit yourself" which is pretty and basic advice anytime you donate to charity?
Therefore you can't give me any personal example, you haven't cited anything from anybody to back anything up, and it's also completely irrelevant for the topic at hand.
Good job.
Oh, no, sorry I was speaking on the general concept that people remember wrong answers even when told they're wrong. Everyone here is so annoyed at "I asked chatGPT, here's a link, I haven't verified it" that I think they purposefully ignored everything else you said.
Yeah..that's what I gathered. People just want to hate chatgpt in the same way they wanted to hate snopes or Wikipedia.
I verified the link I just meant I hadn't checked if it was a good charity like I would if I donated myself.
Edit: and the guy who posted the dead charity link I warmed about got up voted. They see me using it for information searches as evil like I'm using it to make art or write a book. I use it because Google sucks now.
I know people will memorize bad information. I grew up on the border and I'm always explaining the numbers they say about illegal immigrants aren't possible. We can't even evacuate cities before emergencies that fast. Never seems to stick.
As with all tools, there's good use and bad use. I use GPT tools for when I can't remember what the name of something is. They seem to be particularly good at that, and I always follow up with a real source. It's been wrong, but not often.
Absolutely. I'm just saying I've seen this trend with every information source
Wikipedia doesn't count Snopes doesn't count Google doesn't count
Anything can be wrong and I probably shouldnt have dismissed my efforts. I checked the links, they seemed to fit with the information I was provided.
I just warned I didn't check the charity itself for how well funds were appropriated
The guy arguing submitted a dead charity I mentioned was dead and got upvoteted.
I'm not worried about the down votes I'm just saying my information was the only information when I posted it and better information than the people who hated chatgpt. I also didn't just copy and paste. I spent exactly ten minutes checking and warning.
So that means the problem wasn't the information or accuracy. They just hated chatgpt.
Googles dead. Time to move on.
https://xkcd.com/978/ The problem is that a lazy answer builds credibility for a source or fact. You may try to disclaim that it's unreliable, but the mere act of suggesting an answer implies your own support for it.
"I've heard there's studies that suggest vaccines cause autism." is a lazy answer to the question of vaccine safety that ignores the complicated nature of academic research. What it does do is build consensus. Over time, that lazy answer repeated gets you to state where a lot of people doubt the safety of vaccines.
I realize we all live busy lives and nobody has time to research things in great depth. Some people barely research major purchase decisions. What people are trying to communicate here is that an AI answer has very low credibility along the lines of "my uncle who works at Nintendo".
We don't need you to act as a human interface for ChatGPT. If you want to use ChatGPT, use it as a starting point for your own research. Ask it questions like "Where could I find information on this topic?" and go from there. Of course, that's a lot of work; but you can always choose not to post.
If you have life experiences that give you insight into a topic, or you did research and found a good source; please comment and share your insights. They add value to the conversation and it's why most of us are here.
This is really well put
No one else has an answer. They were interested in having answer. I found found one.
Don't compare me to someone speaking nonsense about vaccines. That's crazy talk.
I was clear open and honest, I even suggested people find their own information. I just offered a jumping off point.
On one hand, I can appreciate you doing some work. On the other hand, an actual fundraiser was my first result upon googling "Fred Hampton gravestone fundraiser", which is far quicker than asking ChatGPT would have been. You put in extra effort for worse results (your link has nothing to do with his grave, and instead seeks landmark status for his home). So I believe "do less next time" is a pretty apt response.
Edit: I've emboldened a portion of this comment to emphasize it more. I was not intending to start a whole argument over this. It was meant to be a simple criticism of the method.
Again your charity link is useless and old now. It does nothing. The closest in maintaining his child hood home. I provided the correct answer. You were wrong and prideful because you wasted more time to find less. Congratulations.
Edit: I don't actually care enough to have a full-blown argument over this. Especially not one seeping into mild personal attacks territory.
(my original response)
I promise I have no pride in my ability to google search four keywords. Conversely, you seem rather prideful in your ability to ask an LLM a question. Good job I guess?And how is yours the correct answer while mine is wrong? The link you provided about his childhood home is also an inactive fundraiser. That is to say, a completely unhelpful link. And you call me prideful lol. I would have at least linked the actual relevant old fundraiser unlike you.
And again, I didn't waste any more time googling four keywords and clicking the first link than you did opening ChatGPT and asking it an actual question.
I've have no pride in my bones at all. I'll admit wrong, I even said that it was a possibility in my edit
You claimed you found the better answer, an answer I already explained was wrong. no pride involved on my end. I was very very clear about my effort. You did worse. These are facts not pride.
Your answer was wrong. Mine wasn't. You provided a wrong answer with the same amount of work I put in to provide the correct answer. How is that better?
But it was about the same effort and got very similar results. I mean, you put in a whole lot more effort into your reply and yet you're criticizing people of doing too much. I don't get it. Does ChatGPT trigger people this much?
I have no issue with ChatGPT, I simply dislike when people rely on it as their first and only source and give unhelpful answers because of it. (Edit: Not to mention ChatGPT can be quite dangerous when used this way. Its a bad habit that shouldn't be encouraged.)
And I wouldn't say I put in more effort in my response considering the amount of caveats they added in theirs about how they asked chatgpt and have no idea if its real. Our responses were similar in length, mine is just all one paragraph and so looks bigger. If I had responded to the original question, I would have just dropped a link and that would have been the end of it.
But they were clear about what they did. It's similar, but what you're saying doesn't apply here.
I'm only comparing your response to their effort asking ChatGPT. My point is that typing up a comment on Lemmy is much more effort than formulating a question for ChatGPT, which is negligible, making the entire argument around how much effort one exerts in what a bit forced. Idk, I find it unproductive when there are better points to argue about.
Again, had I responded to the original question, I would have just left a link and that would have been it. Compare that to their comment, where they had to preface it with them asking ChatGPT and not knowing if it was even valid, on top of regurgitating what it said in their own words, and its clear they put more effort in than necessary for what I would consider a less helpful answer.
My response was simply meant to point this out, and that's obviously going to take more effort. I never did and never intended to compare their comment to my whole argument.
I agree the argument is pretty pointless though, it was a simple statement and I even said I appreciated that they did put in some effort and answered the question. Perhaps I should have emphasized that more in my original comment.
It’s annoying and so are the people who defend it to death like you
I'm defending it to death now? Lmao ok
Personally, I find it more annoying when someone starts accusing others of things that have not happened but to each their own.
His result was wrong. He brought up the old donation site I mentioned was now unable to accept donations. He did more work and got less results.
Their point was not about donating but that the fundraiser had changed focus, which was true. If it had been specifically about donating, then I'd agree.
I'll eat that blame even with the warning. I didn't check that's on me.
https://fundrazr.com/11bgb5?ref=ab_2G1YUbDMzxm2G1YUbDMzxm
took a few seconds
"fred hampton gravestone donations"
That's the old one I mentioned. You can't donate. Do better.