Re: Analysis of Flibble's Apology

On 6/1/25 3:28 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:13:10 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/31/25 5:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2025 14:19:20 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

Flibble’s message represents a **notable shift in tone and
precision**,
offering both an apology and a clarification. Here's a detailed
analysis of its content and implications:

[SNIP]
>
Is this article AI-generated?
>
If so, will you *at least* clearly label any AI-generated articles
that you post?

>
It should be obvious if it is written in the third person.
>
/Flibble

>
The use of AI generated content, when not clearly marked as such, is
considered unethical.

 Like most of the rest of the planet I will continue to use AI however I
damn well please.

Since "most of the rest of the planet" does not post AI generated content without marking it, since most of the planet just doesn't post AI generated content, you are just showing that you are just a natural liar.
It may be a fact that most AI generated content is posted without being noted as such, but I am not sure of that, and all that does is show the low ethical state of much of the internet. I believe it has been shown that a majority of internet traffic is just spam and scams and the like.
Good for you to admit that you are just like all the rest of the basic internet scum.

 

>
I guess you are just showing that you lake natural intelegence, but just
have natural ignorance.

 At least I can spell and my sentences are grammatically sound, mate, and
AIs are better at spelling and grammar than you too.
 /Flibble