For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
pin stuck to the triple intersection point in the venn diagram of slop/news/chapotraphouse
apparently, they've been doing these 'we asked chatGPT' articles for a while now
WHY did they pick nancy reagan for the photo tho
Nothing more tired than articles that talk about how ChatGPT responded to a prompt.
It sucked ass 15 years ago when "this is a what somebody had to say about something on Twitter" became a common article format
Jon Stewart was right when he said doing that was like reading what people wrote on the bathroom walls.
bathroom walls are more interesting.
... and that's how i met your mother.
Same energy as when people answer a question with LLM output.
We asked a Furby who the best president is and the results were SHOCKING.
I don't think we've ever had a president named Oopa Guppa Looloo
I had a Furby and when the batteries were dying it'd hang and go bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppppppppp real loud, I'd imagine some six figure hotshit reporter would be like "this doesn't bode well for democracy".
I'm usually not very superstitious, but Furbys are 100% haunted or some shit
Newsweek was bought by the Moonies/a South Korean cult in 2013 and has rapidly gone downhill after that, not that it ever was a bastion of excellence in journalism
Oh, it was the moonies. I thought it was the Koch's... Turns out the Koch's bought Time magazine via Meredith Corp. Getting my dystopian lore mixed up. 
A magazine but it's just a 2-page list of ChatGPT prompts that you can copy-paste to generate the content on your own.
Wikipedia hasn't considered them a reliable source for years.
Just asked it the same prompt in the subtitle. It ranked FDR first.
Wow, you are asking ChatGPT to generate listicles for you? Honestly, that is not only creative -- it's absolutely brilliant.
I'm pretty sure the number of listicles that aren't LLM generated in the past 5 years has become within a rounding error of 100%
They'll only mention such things for a short time before it will just be implied.
So many things wrong with this, but recency bias, more "content" being produced than ever before, and unprecedented unity of state media would obviously lead ChatGPT to like the current president above others.
why would anyone even care? if i wanted the output from chatgpt, id ask it directly.
Idk, i have seen plenty of yobs on Lemmy proudly post "i asked chatGPT and it said this". Morons think that LLMs are fucking oracles
i remember when morons used to say exactly that about google.
Google took them to a website where they could make an informed decision about the validty of that information. ChatGPT is the equivalent of asking a random dude at the bus stop
Nancy’s “just say no” signs were easily repurposed with a well placed “w” at the end.