Re: Doctor Who Space Babies review with spoilers

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

In article <v1q24u$2l7pd$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor  <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

Not The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

The Last Doctor  <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

Not The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

The Last Doctor  <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:

Not The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a lie Dave, isn’t it? You didn’t write this. It’s AI

generated

spaff.
 
It’s full of errors (which is a bit like you) but is coherent and
grammatically correct (which is not at all like you). And it spots lots of
things that you never would.
 

 
You hate changes of style?

 
I love changes of style. But if you wrote one of your usual incoherent
point-by-points, I doubt CoPilot or whatever you used would be able to
polish your turd that far. I’d be delighted to be proved wrong - care to
post what you fed into the AI engine so we can see?
 
You’ve not written anything that coherent in this group - ever. And it’s
packed solidly with tells that it’s an AI composited screed.

 
CoPilot is a huge security! [risk, I infer]

 
It’s a security risk if you use the public version to compose text based on
privileged material. The risk is to the confidentiality of information,
though, not to your computer. Companies can have private instances of
CoPilot that have access to the public body of information to drive their
learning, but ring fence any material fed in from the company.
 
But you’re still evading: what AI did this come from and did you give it
any input other than a target score, and if so what did YOU write?
 

6/10

 
Is that your rating, or is the AI a bigger fanboi than you?

 
Mine, so what is yours?

 
I’ll give my thoughts in due course. And I won’t run them through an AI
bot. It’s fine if you need that crutch. But you really should acknowledge
that it’s by no means your own work.

 
You just watched it and you cannot beat AGA into a review?

 
1. It’s not a race. First review is almost never the best: case in point
you, who must be typing instead of watching normally, and now are just
accepting any old AI generated crap and tagging on a rating.
 
2. For me I need to watch at least twice before giving my thoughts: once
just to watch it and see if I enjoy it, then again to spot nuances. And in
this case, I also need to re-watch “The Church on Ruby Road” before
commenting.
 
3. The episode, in conjunction with its purpose for the series and the
season, was more complex than it appears on the surface. Takes a while to
put down my thoughts sometimes.
 
4. I doubt Aggie gave a real review any more than you have. By the time
you’ve removed the vitriolic rhetoric about “degenerate crap for
illiterates” I suspect there is virtually nothing left. Guessing it got a
0/10 from him? Did he at least tell us whether he is a homosexual, a
transvestite, or both, (his only choices, as earlier this week he told us
that only such people could watch the show, and yet it seems he has watched
it)?
 

 
Yes about 0/10 and you did not read.

Of course I didn’t read it. I have the loon permanently kill filed. I’ve
got no interest in his moronic racist homophobic screeds and the utter
certainty he has that his tiny mind’s viewpoint is the only thing right
with the world. I only see the parts of what he’s vomited out that others
respond to: that’s quite enough for me, thanks.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor