[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.