We get encouraged to try out AI tools for various purposes to see where we can find value out of them, if any. There are some use-cases where the tech makes sense when wielded correctly, and in those cases I make use of it. In other cases, I don't.
So far, I suspect we may be striking a decent balance. I have however noticed a concern trend of people copy-pasting unfiltered slop as a response to various scenarios, which is obviously not helpful.
I have figured it out: many of them.
Great! I salute your rigour in the matter. How many of them was it?
And no, Amnesty did not produce a significant amount of primary evidence. You're just straight up lying now.
There are 430 hits for "Amnesty International interview" as sources.
Who knows, maybe they just interviewed Adrian Zenz for all of those claims. The joke would very much be on me in that case
Is Amnesty International a fundamentalist right wing organization, captured by Adrian Zenz?
They do cite him five times in their report on the subject, but their report does contain a total of 718 sources.
This is not to say that their report should be treated as uncritically correct, but neither should their claims be dismissed outright because of an anticommunist having been a part of doing research on the subject.
To illustrate - Candace Owens, a well known right-wing agitator and all-round piece of shit frequently speaks out against Israel. This does not, very obviously not, make Israel good.
Water, closely followed by coffee. I adhere to a two cup limit, but by god do I enjoy those two cups.
I think this is basically testing:
A la chucha con este puto weón