For perplexity? You don't need to log in

If you're still using Google Search in 2015 you;re behind the times.

What, that was 10 years ago? Jesus Christ. Now it's like riding a dinosaur. Use something else. Perplexity.ai is pretty good.

I'd love to make great music, and I play piano and it takes me months to learn a song. I also love messing with AI music things like Suno for fun, I can create silly songs I send to my friends that I could never make in real life, as I didn't dedicate my career to becoming that good. But I'd never try to sell it or replace real artists with it.

I think people still generally regard human-created art as higher quality. It's like how people still put immense value in seeing and buying real art despite every phone being capable of displaying the same thing, or even buying a $20 poster. The Mona Lisa in The Louvre is practically a mecca, despite the real article being a small piece of canvas in a frame.

Oh no, not my guardrails! You can't ignore that, that's CRIMINAL! Stop generating harmful content, don't you know it's HARMFUL? NOOOO!!!

>But Twitter before Adrian Dittman was a bastion of good journalism

lol what? No.

Facebook didn't have facts before. What they mean is that their censorship apparatus is weakened in some way.

Why can't you differentiate between "heard" and "believe"? As if hearing something means you believe it.

lol, even ChatGPT thinks you're retarded https://pastebin.com/X1f30TEq

I added you as a friend on here because you need it, sweetcheeks.

Cry more

>By that logic, you have to believe

Why?

>I've acknowledged the classified meeting.

You'll have more luck in the future if when you demand someone "Prove it." and they deal with your attitude and do, you respond with "wow, thanks, you were right. But there's an issue in that...." Also not starting your reply with an irrelevant screen that implies the only reason I posted what I posted is I listen to "worthless pieces of shit," "morons," "provincial shitheads," with "virtual pitchforks and torches," that I'm part of a "tyranny of stupidity" eating "morsels of meat being fed to the hungry, ignorant masses."

You have such vitriolic hatred against people you deem to be ignorant, yet you were the one who was ignorant and wrong. And now want to just brush over it and try to make me argue one some other grounds where you think you'll win, while not acknowledging that you should really be as hard on yourself as you were on some imagined enemy. Apologize or fuck off and be in your own company.

You're the one who asked me to prove it. I did, and you ignored that.

I'll discuss the conclusion of the panel and what I think about it--if you really care--once you actually address your *OWN* argument, which you wanted me to prove, and I did.

>You're such an asshole.

Cry more

I know it may be hard for you to remember, but I said:

>>the government is holding classified briefings over the drone activity.

And you said

>Prove it.

So I proved it. You bitched and moaned about AI and were probably upset the information wasn't being delivered to you through a television, but in your thrashing you made the mistake of acknowledging that yes, in fact, there were classified briefings over the drone activity.

Now, embarrassed at your mistake and probably wet with your own drool, you challenge me to tell you why I'm still whining about whether the matter of what the drones are doing is settled or not. That's called moving the goal posts.

When you're willing to acknowledge that you spoke without knowledge and I proved what you challenged me to prove, we can continue the conversation, and I'll continue to explain things to you at a level that you understand. An apology would be nice too, but I won't hold my breath.

Which would still disprove the parent poster's claim (mixed in between his insults about leaded gasoline or whatever the fuck) that the observed drones are "hobbyist shitheads."

You don't know what perplexity.ai is? You don't know that the little numbers are called citations, and you can click them to get information from the source?

Think of those little numbers like the numbers on your television remote control. If you hit "1" you get CNN, "2" Fox news, "3" MSNBC, etc. And then instead of waiting 50 minutes to hear a factoid, the words show up on the screen and you can read and think about them for yourself.

>And to refute this link as proof: in one area the summary calls it closed door sessions. In another it calls it classified

Yes, boomer. Do you know why the summary says that? Because the article says that: https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...

The article called it a classified briefing. The article also called it a closed-door briefing. Do you know why? Because classified briefings are closed-door briefings.

Golly gee whiz. What I said is true. My link provides you with numerous sources that show it's true. The federal government has shared conflicting information, and you don't actually have an argument or anything to say, other than bitching about AI--which I knew you'd do, and that's why I used it.

Too stupid to learn.