Good art by bad people

[Xmara]

You make a good point, though I once had an unfortunate online encounter with someone who acted like reading Harry Potter makes you irredeemable. Or at least that's the impression they gave off.

It would be a better point if it wasn't merely undercut by not just your anecdote but a post made in this very (and not long) thread hours before:

You can separate the art from the person. Whether you should and decide to do so is a different story, and up to you.

Understand that your choice may upset friends who vehemently feel said artist should be shunned for their actions/views.

As I see (below) you have both subsequently agreed, this conversation is evidently about defending the morality of separating the two.

And that is a question that keeps me up at night.

That and is it fair to judge someone for liking art that was created by a bad person if they don't know what that person did? I didn't know anything about the allegations surrounding Michael Jackson until just a couple of years ago. Should I have looked him up before listening to his music to make sure I didn't accidentally enjoy a bad person's art? Should I vet all artists in the future before enjoying their works?

When Michael Jackson died he was Wacko Jacko and essentially everyone in the world knew he was probably a paedophile. Ten years later and suddenly everyone was shocked that he had this paedophilia (or, at least, pederastery) cloud hanging over him.

It's honestly surprising there's no mainstream conspiracy theory alleging whoever had the rights to the royalties of his music had Jackson assassinated.

I was just a kid when he died. I really had no idea.

[Archinstinct]

sidenote: i have a feeling this thread was started partially due to the recent fiasco surrounding Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65725902.amp

Greetings fellow nationstates users, I wanted to provide some context on this. I am/was a member of the north Atlantic Fellas Organization, a social media movement aimed at fighting russian online proganada and fundraising for charities affecting Ukraine. I can provide first-hand source for why Germany is going after Roger Waters, essentially because he's been a large point of annoyance regarding the Ukraine War.

Roger Waters is a very ardent supporter of the kremlin regime, which is a neo-fascist government waging genocide in the ukraine and massacring scores of civilians in places like Sudan and Syria. Waters has gone out of his way to support pro-russian propaganda on social media like twitter, and he has publicly sprouted lies, antisemitic and racist rhetoric at recent rallies like the "No2NatoNo2War" rally in DC earlier this year (first hand account here as I led an anti-fascist effort which successfully fucked over the online broadcasts of that rally and a sister rally in the United Kingdom), and as the article reads at the end, Roger Waters has spoken publicly in defense of the kremlin regime at the United Nations too.

Germany going after Roger Waters in particular makes all manner of sense as Germany and most of eastern Europe has been united and in support the Ukraine zealously, and efforts have been made to track down and arrest fifth columnists whom may be working for the fascist kremlin regime. Roger Waters would fall under this category of being a fifth Columnist for Russia. The reason why roger waters is under investigation is likely an excuse though for a barb-wired criticism and humiliation by the German state to him, with the message for him not to return to Germany because he does support the neo-fascist kremlin government (as does many people who play this game, which i cannot go into further without derailing this topic). /read

Replying to the quote itself and staying on thread topic, absolutely not or at least not while the artist in question is alive or in this life period. Do you want to give said artists carte blanche to express obscene opinions so long as the art itself is high quality? I would assume most people would not.

[Forsher]

It would be a better point if it wasn't merely undercut by not just your anecdote but a post made in this very (and not long) thread hours before:



As I see (below) you have both subsequently agreed, this conversation is evidently about defending the morality of separating the two.



When Michael Jackson died he was Wacko Jacko and essentially everyone in the world knew he was probably a paedophile. Ten years later and suddenly everyone was shocked that he had this paedophilia (or, at least, pederastery) cloud hanging over him.

It's honestly surprising there's no mainstream conspiracy theory alleging whoever had the rights to the royalties of his music had Jackson assassinated.

I was just a kid when he died. I really had no idea.

That wasn't really a comment about you; it was more about how the typical weaponisation of "don't speak ill of the dead", commercial exploitation and the absence of the actual, problematic figure, rehabilitated a borderline pariah back into the King of Pop.

It should be noted that the Wacko Jacko name actually seems to predate the paedophilia bit but the two go hand in hand in my opinion. There's a similar thing going on with Tom Cruise, actually. He's tried very hard to stay out of the spotlight except with his movies and hoping that no-one remembers that he has no contact with his daughter because his ex-wife's concerned about their daughter's wellbeing if she were to spend any time with a cult recruiter. Turns out not jumping on couches does wonders for reducing peoples' appetite to discuss problematic aspects about Tom Cruise.

[Kaiho]

The debate over art made by bad people is complex and controversial. While some argue that the artistic merit should not be negated by the artist's behavior, others believe it's impossible to separate art from the artist. Ultimately, how one approaches such art is a matter of personal values and beliefs, taking into consideration the context and history. It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to appreciate the artistic value of such work and consider the ethical implications of doing so.

[Xmara]

I was just a kid when he died. I really had no idea.

That wasn't really a comment about you; it was more about how the typical weaponisation of "don't speak ill of the dead", commercial exploitation and the absence of the actual, problematic figure, rehabilitated a borderline pariah back into the King of Pop.

It should be noted that the Wacko Jacko name actually seems to predate the paedophilia bit but the two go hand in hand in my opinion. There's a similar thing going on with Tom Cruise, actually. He's tried very hard to stay out of the spotlight except with his movies and hoping that no-one remembers that he has no contact with his daughter because his ex-wife's concerned about their daughter's wellbeing if she were to spend any time with a cult recruiter. Turns out not jumping on couches does wonders for reducing peoples' appetite to discuss problematic aspects about Tom Cruise.

Oh okay thanks for letting me know.

And yeah, I've noticed that not many people bring up Tom Cruise's involvement in scientology. Only time I've ever heard it brought up was back when a friend of mine was going to a conference and was staying in a hotel that had a view of the scientology headquarters and she made a joke about how she might get to see Tom Cruise.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

The debate over art made by bad people is complex and controversial. While some argue that the artistic merit should not be negated by the artist's behavior, others believe it's impossible to separate art from the artist. Ultimately, how one approaches such art is a matter of personal values and beliefs, taking into consideration the context and history. It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to appreciate the artistic value of such work and consider the ethical implications of doing so.

ChatGPT?

[The Archregimancy]

The debate over art made by bad people is complex and controversial. While some argue that the artistic merit should not be negated by the artist's behavior, others believe it's impossible to separate art from the artist. Ultimately, how one approaches such art is a matter of personal values and beliefs, taking into consideration the context and history. It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to appreciate the artistic value of such work and consider the ethical implications of doing so.

ChatGPT?

Determining whether something is written by ChatGPT or not can be challenging, as the model aims to generate human-like text. However, there are a few indicators that can help you make an educated guess:

Unusual responses: ChatGPT may occasionally produce nonsensical or irrelevant answers. If the text you're analyzing contains unexpected or illogical statements, it might suggest it was generated by an AI model.

Excessive verbosity or repetition: ChatGPT sometimes tends to be overly wordy or redundant in its responses. If you notice an unusually long or repetitive reply, it could be a hint that it was generated by an AI.

Lack of personal experiences or emotions: While ChatGPT can simulate human-like conversations, it doesn't have personal experiences or emotions of its own. If the text lacks personal anecdotes or emotional depth, it may be an indication that it's generated by an AI.

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Inconsistent or contradictory statements: ChatGPT may sometimes provide conflicting answers within the same conversation. If you encounter inconsistent responses or contradictory information, it could indicate AI involvement.

It's important to note that these indicators are not foolproof, and there is always a possibility of human-like text being generated by ChatGPT. AI technology is continually advancing, and it's becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated content.

[Vistulange]

ChatGPT?

Determining whether something is written by ChatGPT or not can be challenging, as the model aims to generate human-like text. However, there are a few indicators that can help you make an educated guess:

Unusual responses: ChatGPT may occasionally produce nonsensical or irrelevant answers. If the text you're analyzing contains unexpected or illogical statements, it might suggest it was generated by an AI model.

Excessive verbosity or repetition: ChatGPT sometimes tends to be overly wordy or redundant in its responses. If you notice an unusually long or repetitive reply, it could be a hint that it was generated by an AI.

Lack of personal experiences or emotions: While ChatGPT can simulate human-like conversations, it doesn't have personal experiences or emotions of its own. If the text lacks personal anecdotes or emotional depth, it may be an indication that it's generated by an AI.

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Inconsistent or contradictory statements: ChatGPT may sometimes provide conflicting answers within the same conversation. If you encounter inconsistent responses or contradictory information, it could indicate AI involvement.

It's important to note that these indicators are not foolproof, and there is always a possibility of human-like text being generated by ChatGPT. AI technology is continually advancing, and it's becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated content.

This post reads like it's been written by ChatGPT, Arch.

[The Archregimancy]

Determining whether something is written by ChatGPT or not can be challenging, as the model aims to generate human-like text. However, there are a few indicators that can help you make an educated guess:

Unusual responses: ChatGPT may occasionally produce nonsensical or irrelevant answers. If the text you're analyzing contains unexpected or illogical statements, it might suggest it was generated by an AI model.

Excessive verbosity or repetition: ChatGPT sometimes tends to be overly wordy or redundant in its responses. If you notice an unusually long or repetitive reply, it could be a hint that it was generated by an AI.

Lack of personal experiences or emotions: While ChatGPT can simulate human-like conversations, it doesn't have personal experiences or emotions of its own. If the text lacks personal anecdotes or emotional depth, it may be an indication that it's generated by an AI.

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Inconsistent or contradictory statements: ChatGPT may sometimes provide conflicting answers within the same conversation. If you encounter inconsistent responses or contradictory information, it could indicate AI involvement.

It's important to note that these indicators are not foolproof, and there is always a possibility of human-like text being generated by ChatGPT. AI technology is continually advancing, and it's becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated content.

This post reads like it's been written by ChatGPT, Arch.

I couldn't possibly comment.

[Picairn]

Don't know if Arch's writing was generated by AI, but I put a sample of his post into 2 online AI checkers and they all return "100% human" results. Only Kaiho's post was dinged as 100% AI.

[Vistulange]

Don't know if Arch's writing was generated by AI, but I put a sample of his post into 2 online AI checkers and they all return "100% human" results. Only Kaiho's post was dinged as 100% AI.

Arch's post was too clinical, too...without personal flair. It's difficult to describe, but basically, he (from what I've seen of his NS writing) usually doesn't write like that.

I'm by no means foolproof, but I'm in the situation where I have a lot of students who think using ChatGPT is a good idea to write their essays. I've gotten some practice in seeing it, but again, not foolproof. For all I know, Arch could have just tailored it very carefully to lead me (and others) exactly down this rabbit hole

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Don't know if Arch's writing was generated by AI, but I put a sample of his post into 2 online AI checkers and they all return "100% human" results. Only Kaiho's post was dinged as 100% AI.

Arch's post was too clinical, too...without personal flair. It's difficult to describe, but basically, he (from what I've seen of his NS writing) usually doesn't write like that.

I'm by no means foolproof, but I'm in the situation where I have a lot of students who think using ChatGPT is a good idea to write their essays. I've gotten some practice in seeing it, but again, not foolproof. For all I know, Arch could have just tailored it very carefully to lead me (and others) exactly down this rabbit hole

I was quite amused by the US lawyer who got in trouble using ChatGPT to prepare his case. It cited non-existent precednets. He claimed he didn't know it could produce false results.

"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65735769

Bad art by good AI?

[The Archregimancy]

Don't know if Arch's writing was generated by AI, but I put a sample of his post into 2 online AI checkers and they all return "100% human" results. Only Kaiho's post was dinged as 100% AI.

For the sake of clarity and honesty, yes my post was generated by ChatGPT - in response to the prompt 'How can I tell if something is written by ChatGPT?'.

[Clussy Paradise]

I mean, yes, it has been known to happen.

[Ostroeuropa]

You can appreciate art even when it serves evil ends and the content itself is ethically repulsive, provided it is done with talent. I'd argue that it's actually important to do so, as it allows you to experience the aesthetic, rhetoric, and emotional headspace of your ideological enemies in order to better form criticism of them or predict their behaviors and so on.

An extremely well articulated and aesthetically pleasing piece of fascist propaganda can be enjoyed without subscribing to fascism. The red army choir is incredibly popular even among virulent anti-communists. And so on.

In artistic terms i'd also argue it is necessary for the "soul" so to speak, to understand and experience the human condition expressed by all its members. Fascist art in some crude sense, makes fascists a valuable addition to the species because though that art they can direct us to sentiments, emotions, and perspectives on the world that we can enjoy for the run-time and then discard and then reply to them. To empathize with evil and emulate their fury in your mind allows a form of self-knowledge. Without fascist art, we would need to become fascists to fully understand ourselves.

I am capable of playing a video game and suspending my disbelief. Something similar occurs with evil content provided you put your mind to it. When the game shuts off, I don't go around thinking I need to drive-by a bunch of prostitutes.

If someone engages with evil content and find it does "Nothing for them", that's also a valuable insight into themselves. Given that we can go to such extremes i'd say that content-neutral "Bad people" art is obviously quite defensible, though actually might be significantly more boring since it laws the raw authenticity of expression.

I also, to some extent, am too much of a humanist to discount the guttural howl given out by the human animal through art to express their sentiments, even if those sentiments are evil. It is too personal and universal a thing to discount and dismiss. I find evil art beautiful in part because of this. The conflation of beauty with ethical righteousness is where the criticism should instead come in. Authenticity plays a huge role in all of that though. Where the propaganda is instead "Intellectual" it is much more frustrating and tedious.

[Forsher]

Arch's post was too clinical, too...without personal flair. It's difficult to describe, but basically, he (from what I've seen of his NS writing) usually doesn't write like that.

I'm by no means foolproof, but I'm in the situation where I have a lot of students who think using ChatGPT is a good idea to write their essays. I've gotten some practice in seeing it, but again, not foolproof. For all I know, Arch could have just tailored it very carefully to lead me (and others) exactly down this rabbit hole

I was quite amused by the US lawyer who got in trouble using ChatGPT to prepare his case. It cited non-existent precednets. He claimed he didn't know it could produce false results.

"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65735769

Bad art by good AI?

I mean, this is the precise reason why AI isn't really a threat to education, unless the purpose of the education is transferable skills. Now, whether being able to tell at a glance that a list of precedents, facts or whatever is all made up is what we want from education is, admittedly, a separate question but... It would certainly make marking essays harder. Like, how does a history essay get marked by someone who hasn't read the original argument being described?

I'm surprised that Picarin's AI finders couldn't identify Arch's text as being from ChatGPT because, like, it sounds exactly like ChatGPT. Maybe I use it too much... ChatGPT write me a film treatment about an archaeology professor who trolls his students by making ChatGPT write all his essay feedback.

Title: The Sarcasm Archaeologist

Logline: An eccentric archaeology professor trolls his students by having an AI language model provide sarcastic feedback on their essays, but things take a serious turn when they stumble upon a long-lost artifact that could change history.

Synopsis:

Dr. Harold Stone is a renowned archaeology professor at a prestigious university. He's known for his sarcastic wit and unconventional teaching methods. One day, he decides to take things up a notch by enlisting the help of an AI language model named ChatGPT to provide feedback on his students' essays.

At first, the students are amused by the sarcastic comments and witty comebacks from ChatGPT. But as time goes on, they start to resent the professor for his lack of genuine feedback and begin to question his teaching methods.

Meanwhile, Dr. Stone and his team of archaeologists are on a mission to uncover a long-lost artifact that could change the course of history. They believe that the artifact is hidden somewhere in a nearby cave system, and they embark on a perilous journey to find it.

As they delve deeper into the caves, they encounter numerous obstacles and challenges, but they remain determined to find the artifact. Along the way, they discover clues that lead them to believe that the artifact is not just a simple relic, but something far more significant.

As the team gets closer to their goal, they are suddenly ambushed by a group of rival archaeologists who are also searchingfor the artifact. A fierce battle ensues, and in the chaos, Dr. Stone is injured and taken captive by the rival team.

It's up to the students to band together and rescue their professor, using their knowledge of archaeology and their teamwork skills to outsmart their rivals. With the help of ChatGPT, who proves to be a valuable asset in deciphering ancient texts, they eventually locate the artifact and rescue Dr. Stone.

In the end, the artifact turns out to be a map that leads to an even more significant discovery, one that could change the course of history. Dr. Stone and his team are hailed as heroes for their discovery, and the students learn the value of perseverance, teamwork, and the importance of genuine feedback.

The film ends with Dr. Stone admitting that his trolling methods were not the best way to teach, and he promises to provide more insightful feedback to his students in the future. The students laugh, knowing that ChatGPT will still be around to provide some sarcastic quips from time to time.

Based on the logline I was thinking this was an Indiana Jones knock off, but that's more a National Treasure film.

[Point Blob]

Not sure why this sort of topic provokes this kind of debate, honestly.
Any sort of moral subjectivism kinda negates the premise... and any sorta moral non-subjectivism is laughably out of touch with reality.
But then maybe it isn't about that, and the use of the words "good" or "bad" in this sense is simply meant to indicate a duality of personal approval and disapproval respectively...

... and this is starting to sound entirely too much like taking things seriously, and that won't do at all.

Art is inherently fraudulent, for it depicts things as they aren't... and that won't do at all.
Depicting reality accurately is the domain of SCIENCE.

Incidentally, if I had a time-machine, I would not go back in time to try and kill Hitler before he could cause any harm. I WOULD however do so for Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock. I would absolutely kill both of them as infants for the greater good of accurate depiction. I'd also kill Colonel Sanders for heresy or somesuch, but that is another topic. Just... y'know... mentioning because one would want to use a time-machine to murder people efficiently.

I am capable of playing a video game and suspending my disbelief. Something similar occurs with evil content provided you put your mind to it. When the game shuts off, I don't go around thinking I need to drive-by a bunch of prostitutes.

I think it was Assassin's Creed 3 or 4.... one or other... that has a main quest requirement to kill Ocelots. Well, I just utterly REFUSED to have anything to do with it, as my policy against harming cute kitties extends to games too. I can only loosen my own ethical standards so much, even playing a fictional role. I won't ever do things that I am fundamentally opposed to, even for fiction.

... Meanwhile I loved playing Prototype, grabbing random pedestrians and body-surfing them through a crowd with a shower of satisfying gore. Hehehe.

[Kerwa]

Not sure why this sort of topic provokes this kind of debate, honestly.
Any sort of moral subjectivism kinda negates the premise... and any sorta moral non-subjectivism is laughably out of touch with reality.
But then maybe it isn't about that, and the use of the words "good" or "bad" in this sense is simply meant to indicate a duality of personal approval and disapproval respectively...

... and this is starting to sound entirely too much like taking things seriously, and that won't do at all.

Art is inherently fraudulent, for it depicts things as they aren't... and that won't do at all.
Depicting reality accurately is the domain of SCIENCE.

Incidentally, if I had a time-machine, I would not go back in time to try and kill Hitler before he could cause any harm. I WOULD however do so for Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock. I would absolutely kill both of them as infants for the greater good of accurate depiction. I'd also kill Colonel Sanders for heresy or somesuch, but that is another topic. Just... y'know... mentioning because one would want to use a time-machine to murder people efficiently.

Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock were creations of the CIA. If it hadn’t been them it would have been some other toolboxes. Maybe killing Hitler would have been enough since a Cold War could have been avoided, but I doubt it.

I’d go back in time and kill Pete Seeger. He was a supercilious bastard who should have had it coming.

[Point Blob]

Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock were creations of the CIA. If it hadn’t been them it would have been some other toolboxes. Maybe killing Hitler would have been enough since a Cold War could have been avoided, but I doubt it.

I’d go back in time and kill Pete Seeger. He was a supercilious bastard who should have had it coming.

Interesting.
Well, if I ever get my hands on a time machine, I'll probably have a VERY long kill-list by that point.
Utterly preventing things from ever happening is extremely troublesome, as there are no end to potential inventors of such things...

... Perhaps if I got a time-machine, I should instead go about trying to culturally indoctrinate society into my personal views rather than just assassinating people for making things I don't like...


...... But let's be real here. Charisma is my dump-stat. Strength and Wisdom are also my dump-stats. In fact everything besides Int is probably my dump-stat and I'm not 100% sure on that last one. Point is I'd have a better chance of killing people in the past than trying to change society meaningfully.

SO I have to prevent anyone ever making fried chicken.... and also prevent anyone ever creating contact lenses... and also anyone who ever just splatters paint randomly on a canvas and then treats it like anything other than a waste of paint and canvas.

[Ethel mermania]

Don't know if Arch's writing was generated by AI, but I put a sample of his post into 2 online AI checkers and they all return "100% human" results. Only Kaiho's post was dinged as 100% AI.

That is what they want you to think.

[Ethel mermania]

Full disclosure: as an artform i love Soviet Realism.

[Clussy Paradise]

Full disclosure: as an artform i love Soviet Realism.

Some of it is cool.

[Duncaq]

SO I have to prevent anyone ever making fried chicken.... and also prevent anyone ever creating contact lenses... and also anyone who ever just splatters paint randomly on a canvas and then treats it like anything other than a waste of paint and canvas.

At the risk of de-railing the thread:

Jackson Pollock's work was about decontruction and analysis of the artistic method. It was his way of exploring the age old question: "What is art?" The paint he was applying to the canvas was actually not splattered randomly, but often deliberately applied. It was exploration of technique, rather than exploration of imagery. The art is not in the final form, it's in the creative process.

His imitators often miss this aspect, and indeed do random splatter the canvas. Which *is* a waste of paint and canvas. They are not actually exploring a new idea which is what Pollock did, they are simply producing a pastiche.

[Kaiho]

Don't know if Arch's writing was generated by AI, but I put a sample of his post into 2 online AI checkers and they all return "100% human" results. Only Kaiho's post was dinged as 100% AI.

For the sake of clarity and honesty, yes my post was generated by ChatGPT - in response to the prompt 'How can I tell if something is written by ChatGPT?'.

I was quite amused by the US lawyer who got in trouble using ChatGPT to prepare his case. It cited non-existent precednets. He claimed he didn't know it could produce false results.

"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65735769

Bad art by good AI?

I mean, this is the precise reason why AI isn't really a threat to education, unless the purpose of the education is transferable skills. Now, whether being able to tell at a glance that a list of precedents, facts or whatever is all made up is what we want from education is, admittedly, a separate question but... It would certainly make marking essays harder. Like, how does a history essay get marked by someone who hasn't read the original argument being described?

I'm surprised that Picarin's AI finders couldn't identify Arch's text as being from ChatGPT because, like, it sounds exactly like ChatGPT. Maybe I use it too much... ChatGPT write me a film treatment about an archaeology professor who trolls his students by making ChatGPT write all his essay feedback.

Title: The Sarcasm Archaeologist

Logline: An eccentric archaeology professor trolls his students by having an AI language model provide sarcastic feedback on their essays, but things take a serious turn when they stumble upon a long-lost artifact that could change history.

Synopsis:

Dr. Harold Stone is a renowned archaeology professor at a prestigious university. He's known for his sarcastic wit and unconventional teaching methods. One day, he decides to take things up a notch by enlisting the help of an AI language model named ChatGPT to provide feedback on his students' essays.

At first, the students are amused by the sarcastic comments and witty comebacks from ChatGPT. But as time goes on, they start to resent the professor for his lack of genuine feedback and begin to question his teaching methods.

Meanwhile, Dr. Stone and his team of archaeologists are on a mission to uncover a long-lost artifact that could change the course of history. They believe that the artifact is hidden somewhere in a nearby cave system, and they embark on a perilous journey to find it.

As they delve deeper into the caves, they encounter numerous obstacles and challenges, but they remain determined to find the artifact. Along the way, they discover clues that lead them to believe that the artifact is not just a simple relic, but something far more significant.

As the team gets closer to their goal, they are suddenly ambushed by a group of rival archaeologists who are also searchingfor the artifact. A fierce battle ensues, and in the chaos, Dr. Stone is injured and taken captive by the rival team.

It's up to the students to band together and rescue their professor, using their knowledge of archaeology and their teamwork skills to outsmart their rivals. With the help of ChatGPT, who proves to be a valuable asset in deciphering ancient texts, they eventually locate the artifact and rescue Dr. Stone.

In the end, the artifact turns out to be a map that leads to an even more significant discovery, one that could change the course of history. Dr. Stone and his team are hailed as heroes for their discovery, and the students learn the value of perseverance, teamwork, and the importance of genuine feedback.

The film ends with Dr. Stone admitting that his trolling methods were not the best way to teach, and he promises to provide more insightful feedback to his students in the future. The students laugh, knowing that ChatGPT will still be around to provide some sarcastic quips from time to time.

Based on the logline I was thinking this was an Indiana Jones knock off, but that's more a National Treasure film.

Perhaps you need to be informed that the entire purpose of this nation, Kaiho, is a nation created within the ideals of ChatGPT.

[El Lazaro]

Knowledge limitations: The underlying model, GPT-3.5, was trained on a large dataset up until September 2021. If a text contains recent information or events beyond that date, it suggests that it might not have been generated by ChatGPT.

Interesting. The current version is 4.0, so ChatGPT has limited knowledge on itself. If the information that a version of ChatGPT has a dataset limited to a certain date always comes out after that date (that is, it isn’t announced beforehand), then ChatGPT will always overestimate its own limitations.