Edit: The post was probably heavily AI written and contains mistakes to that effect, which is unfortunate. The data in general is still interesting though.
Edit: The post was probably heavily AI written and contains mistakes to that effect, which is unfortunate. The data in general is still interesting though.
Near-identical doesn’t make it valuable. Plausible but incorrect is still incorrect. AI creates plausible and credible but incorrect data.
The plausibility and credibility is like a honeypot for your confidence. You read it, and understand it, and come to believe it. But it was false all along. You think you learned things. You actually learned nothing.
Sounds like AI