It's even weirder since ChatGPT is basically trained on, among other things, Wikipedia. So to ask ChatGPT to write Wikipedia is basically to regurgitate the training data set. It's very circular. People need to realize these "AI" are simply condensed statistical structures of HUMAN knowledge. It is literally parroting back what an actual human wrote, at a mega scale. It is not truly intelligent, nor generative, nor original in any sense. Asking 'should [this type of] AI write Wikipedia' is inherently nonsensical.

âoePointless shitâ? Your username most definitely does *not* check out. Taking pride in oneâ(TM)s publicly addressable IP was always a big thing amongst those who setup or ran their own systems in any way. I sure as hell would have been jealous of anyone with a 18.18/16 address...!

I was just writing a similar comment but decided against it due to the digitization issue. However, the same concern applies to non-manuscript objects like the fully-functional Enigma machine that was also sold in the auction. Such a device would be better served in a museum or at least a publicly accessible place where people can be inspired by it - both by the technical achievements required to produce it, as well as the efforts that went into taking down the regime that employed it. Locking away the heritage of humanity's progress into private, rich hands that will probably not even be able to understand these artifacts, and thus only serve to bolster their already tremendous egos and boast to their rich friends over cocktail dinners, is not doing the inventors nor the public any service.

It certainly appears that you have researched this case quite a lot, which is fine and interesting (I wonder what your motivations are for this). I just wanted to point out, however, that the comment you made above applies to you as well. You cannot judge the guilt of JA any more than the "echo chamber info" people, and should preface all of your comments in this regard with a disclaimer along the lines of, "this is my prejudiced and biased opinion". Having "researched the facts" does not mean that you have an objective, cool view. If anything, it seems you have the opposite. You are quite passionate about it, and thus likely ill-suited to judge the guilt or innocence of the defendant (using derogatory phrases like "Assange fans", etc. etc.).

Let's leave this to the judges and stop pretending we've already condemned Assange, alright?

If you RTFA, you will see that the point is not that after playing GTA you'll go out and kill someone. The point is that after playing violent games, a subtle shift in your attitudes will take place, a desensitization to violence and a growing attitude that it's OK to be violent towards others.

You may never actually kill anyone (and probably won't), but the effects of playing violent videogames will instead surface in how you address your loved ones, how you treat strangers who cross you the wrong way, how you deal with impatience towards others. You may not get the urge to pull a shotgun and blow their heads off, but you will undoubtedly have a greater tendency to belittle those who annoy you, to be verbally aggressive towards them, and yes, even to be physically aggressive.

It may take a lot of desensitization -- and indeed a lot of other factors too -- before someone who plays violent games would as a result go on a shooting spree, but that does not mean that playing violent games has no effect on one's psyche.