Sarah Valentine

Answer the question.

Edit: All right, since you won’t, I’ll spell it out for you. It’s AI. The AI detectors are AI models. You are suggesting we put the policing of AI use in the hands of AI. It’s not even close to a good idea. It’s nothing less than self-defeating.

What in the world are you talking about? None of these scores are bad at all. 149/170 is a score of 87.6%, at collegiate level. Characterizing that as “illiterate” is ludicrous.

“People who speak out against this are of no consequence” is not a rebuttal of the argument.

But until we get laws in place banning AI (and reducing their board of directors to mulch), we should try to support detecting and punishing its use.

What exactly do you think drives the AI detectors?

I’m less concerned with people who leash a toddler than I am with those who won’t leash their dog.

It kinda had to at some point right? DNA didn’t exist until something other than DNA led to it.

A mouse can’t tell us what works"

And neither can a disembodied miniature organ? What a weird headline.

You know, you’re right! The actual study tested dozens of bacterial strains and different sweeteners, and the article cherry picked one tiny fact to vagueify into clickbait. I’ll edit my comment to reflect this.

One specific sweetener, in conjunction with one specific medication, among dozens of tested bacteria and sweetener combinations. This is bad journalism.

horsehair hoody ☠️

A dead body.