[hollandays]

To me, this is the most important claim in the lawsuit:

> From there, the goat was delivered to unnamed individuals at the fair “for slaughter/destruction” even though the warrant required them to hold the goat for a court hearing to determine its lawful owner, the lawsuit says.

There was a property dispute, and the court issued a warrant to recover the property and hold it until a court hearing to decide ownership, but the holders disobeyed the warrant and hid or destroyed the property.

[Aperocky]

The fair seemed to be on a power trip.

They used all of their power to prevent a mutually agreed reversal of the transaction, and then stepped all over other rules that they didn't want to follow.

I generally cannot comprehend why this happen - it doesn't even benefit the fair even if this went unreported and under the radar. It's being evil for evil's sake and things that I thought made Marvel movies unwatchable because the bad guys don't make sense doing what they did.

[hollandays]

The fact that the fair didn't wait for the hearing or sue the contestant comes across like they knew they didn't own it. But the fact that they had a "no exceptions" rule instead of structuring the auction so that they're the legal buyer of the animal and the winner buys the meat from them comes across like they're stupid.

[ops]

To me, the most important thing here isn't the lawsuit, or the goat theft, or the woman's or fair's actions at all - it's how journalism can be used to manipulate smart people into thinking one thing is true, when it's not, and what that means in a post-GPT world.

I think this type of journalism has been holding us back, as a society, and we now have the tools to fix it (or make it worse).

[clowd]

Are you saying that the SacBee article is misrepresenting something to "manipulate" people? What does it purport to be true that's not true?

The only problem GPT is fit to solve is an empty hard drive you'd like to have filled with random, useless garbage. But I don't understand how GPT is germane to this goat escapade in the first place.

[hollandays]

How is this article manipulative or related to ChatGPT?

[ops]

I said GPT, not ChatGPT. But you could give ChatGPT the article, and ask it how it’s manipulative. For example, ask it whether or not the article states that there was an agreement between the buyer and the woman to sell the goat back (something that several people here have said with confidence).

I suspect GPT could write a longer, more comprehensive article (given all of the same information the journalist had access to)… and it would lead to completely different conclusions.

[hollandays]

I was being nice about saying that most other commenters probably hadn't read to the end of the article by phrasing it as an opinion.