I get the sentiment, but if you can't acknowledge that AI is useful and currently a lot better than search for a great many things, then it's hard to have a rational conversation.
I get the sentiment, but if you can't acknowledge that AI is useful and currently a lot better than search for a great many things, then it's hard to have a rational conversation.
why do they need to acknowledge something outside of the point they're trying to make?
Because it was a middlebrow dismissal of the GP
because that's how conversations work. anything less is sparkling debate.
how is it useful to be fed misleading nonsense?