General Discussion

After that, so far, have been more careful as much as I can - checking out "About" labels and looking at lips that match the words, so many lips!1 -----------Or actually, applying good old *critical thinking* along the lines of Liberal Arts language analysis, common sense, sensing what is illogical or contradictory.

The problem is, the KIMMEL vid, besides being visually convincing, said all good things that KIMMEL would say zinging KRASNOV every which way - nothing that would work against his and our politics. Then, along the same lines, I posted an animated cartoon type video about (I forget: ) Greek or Roman history and got quadruple-blasted with an accompanying screed on the grounds that it was "AI Slop". It was just amusing and entertaining and not misleading in content.

Here's the thing: I can see that the ones using a celebrity/personality's image/voice, even while not misrepresenting what they have or might say, still can be considered to be sort of sleazy - although, why don't the personalities involved complain or sue or say-something about it? But in the case of the cartoon, the argument was that (just because) it was AI it was automatically *false" and I was told to look for real videos of history. The thing is that it was a *cartoon* rendition of true history - true, compared to two or three years of content on the Greek/Roman/Egyptian videos I have been looking at. The cartoon was amusing *AND* as legitimate in content as the non-cartoon ones.

*** I am as under-knowing about AI and as suspicious of it and fearful of the bits of horrible possibilities I've heard about as anybody. And I have resisted the bombardment from Google, Microsoft, and tons of other outlets trying to force me to sign up with their AI apps or whatever they are, while other tons of them already have me signed up without my knowing. But I am also wary of the zeal that is out there of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" (as a DUer put it).

Decrying a cartoon solely because it was created by AI, without reference to what the content was, is like Dan QUAYLE fighting with a television character. More substantive arguments are about AI taking people's jobs, or actual malicious uses of AI in spreading disinformation (not true information).

**********************
********************** ON EDIT, about YouTube:
I've been "enrolled at The University of YouTube" for about 5 or more years and have said numerous times that I've learned more than I ever did in two Degrees' worth of academia. I mean, any topic from history or how-to or travel or (ad infinitum). And, yes, there are plenty of crackpot things out there. But the plain old *critical thinking* and detecting does the job of separating the wheat from the chaff. But I never knew that YouTube was supposed to "vet" (as KRASNOV says about immigration) every bit of what appears the way supposed Free-Speechers like MUSKrat and social outlets use "moderation" to do the opposite of free speechifying.

I've had a couple of doctors react furiously at the mention of "the internet" or "I saw it on Good Morning America" - them saying, " *I* am a doctor! NOT the internet! The internet is FULL of false information!" -----------Get the insulting implication there, that they think I/we are too stupid to be able to ferret out the bad stuff, cherrypick the good stuff, because we are STUPID and only they/doctors are smart enough!

*** And I started calling it "The University of YouTube" long before I heard that ROGAN was calling it something similar. In fact, I made shady comments about ROGAN, saying that he is under-educated and gets what little knowledge he has from YouTube videos.