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.
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.