Don't applaud fake "creativity" in AI-generated garbage. You're applauding a parody of creativity, and

[Ms. Toad]

92. You've lost the thread of the conversation.

The OP was discouraging applauding creativity of AI.

You responded that you supported its use, at least in some instance, for facts.

My response was that facts are exactly what AI should not be used for because it makes crap up without anything to indicate when it is providing facts and when it is providing nonsense. If you already know the subject matter well enough to know which of what is says is factual, why bother using AI. If you don't know it that well, you have no business relying on it without independently verify every single fact in what it provides - because it is impossible to tell from the context what is a fact and what is a lie.

It is NOT good enough to check a bunch of facts in any specific AI spew, without checking every single one - because unlike human generated content (in which you can assess the reliability of the source based on their past reliability, their fact-checking process, etc, AI makes up crap just for the heck of it.

So providing a list of some of the things in the article you were talking about (which you never linked to, or provided me with any means of even finding) doesn't contradict anything I've said. I have not found a single piece of AI generated content which is 100% factual. That means that you need to check EVERY SINGLE fact, not just a bunch of them. Because it is a coin toss as to whether any specific fact in AI generated crap is actually a fact.

And the real danger that AI poses to our fact-check-challenged democracy has nothing to do with stolen property or creativity. It has to do producing believable content it just made up - at a time when very few people are doing any fact checking at all. At least with human produced content, there are often tells as to reliability (reputation, standard set of fact-checking practices, etc.). There are none with AI.