>>17316592 No that's just wrong. No human can answer this fast.
>>17316591 Introducing such a technology at a time when far too many people already take all the information they find on the Internet at face value and when critical media reception seems to be a long-forgotten cultural technique is at least questionable. Because there are no sources for the answers written by the machine. Now that I've tested this thing extensively, I have other concerns to report. Obviously we are dealing here with a prototype of controlled and supervised thinking, which gives an idea of how the future information control of the Internet, which was so vehemently demanded from the top during the so-called "pandemic", will or should one day operate. You don't have to be particularly smart to see that this will eventually result in a new kind of totalitarianism: a superior intelligence that does the thinking for people and has a woke bias in the process. Alternatively, there will maybe be a violent impact in reality. For example, when the AI is entrusted with the functions necessary for civilization, such as the administration of justice, the energy system or agriculture.
