Right, but no actual attempts at correction of misconception with seeming encouragement of the assumption. In fact, the response to the AI GENERATED letter sets up the problem.
For the readers, there is a screenshot of a AI detection tool (Integrito, I think) that shows that 100% of the text is "likely" AI-generated. None of the text was in the "highly likely" category.
The original was AI-generated; the writer then did a ‘manual pass’ to clean it up and produced a handwritten version in order to give it more credence via:
Writing a paper without lines so the text is skewed and is ‘more authentic’
Post script correction of the case on the g in “Gun Violence”
Introducing poor grammar like “Thank you for heading the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and for years and President Biden’s push…)
EDIT: I believe it is unlikely that the Harris campaign would have engaged with this if they believed it was an AI-generated letter.
EDIT: I believe it is unlikely that the Harris campaign would have engaged with this if they believed it was an AI-generated letter.
Wait, so you actually believed that the Harris campaign received a hand-written letter in the mail, and that they found it so genuine that they decided to post it to their twitter account? That they didn't just create this themselves as a publicity stunt?
It does sound far-fetched when you explain it that way. There are a few things to untangle.
Consider the likelihood of something like this happening at all. Have they ever shown and publicly responded to letters in the past? But if it was a setup, then getting the letter is 100% likely.
Now consider whether they believed the letter was genuine. That's necessary, but not sufficient to post it with an online response. Steps were taken to make it look authentic.
Did the letter address one or more political objectives of theirs? This is where I think they could have been duped into falling for the fake letter. Could it even be true that there are moles working within the Harris campaign who were waiting for this letter so they could forward it to the right people an elicit a response?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but it's interesting, I think.
Tucker responded: https://patriots.win/p/17ty2hS0TV/letter-from-a-fan/c
At no point does she claim that the letter she received is from Tucker Carlsen.
Right, but no actual attempts at correction of misconception with seeming encouragement of the assumption. In fact, the response to the AI GENERATED letter sets up the problem.
Why do you think it was generated by AI?
read the fucking article.
Thanks.
For the readers, there is a screenshot of a AI detection tool (Integrito, I think) that shows that 100% of the text is "likely" AI-generated. None of the text was in the "highly likely" category.
According to someone from XRVision (a small startup, I think these guys https://www.xrvision.com/ )
EDIT: I believe it is unlikely that the Harris campaign would have engaged with this if they believed it was an AI-generated letter.
Wait, so you actually believed that the Harris campaign received a hand-written letter in the mail, and that they found it so genuine that they decided to post it to their twitter account? That they didn't just create this themselves as a publicity stunt?
Are you tarded or something?
It does sound far-fetched when you explain it that way. There are a few things to untangle.
Consider the likelihood of something like this happening at all. Have they ever shown and publicly responded to letters in the past? But if it was a setup, then getting the letter is 100% likely.
Now consider whether they believed the letter was genuine. That's necessary, but not sufficient to post it with an online response. Steps were taken to make it look authentic.
Did the letter address one or more political objectives of theirs? This is where I think they could have been duped into falling for the fake letter. Could it even be true that there are moles working within the Harris campaign who were waiting for this letter so they could forward it to the right people an elicit a response?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but it's interesting, I think.