/lit/bros... what's our response? Are books obsolete now that we've summarized all literature that has ever been written?

>>24528704 (OP)
You don't try reason with bugmen. It's a mistake.

Bizarre meme idea that ChatGPT can summarise books
Maybe it can summarise basic fiction plot-points but it misses any finer details. I tried to talk with it about Spengler once and it had no clue what I was talking about whilst simultaneously trying to reframe Spenglerianism as a brave leftist vanguard concept against racism.

>>24528900
It will make up random shit when it doesn't have the correct info instead of saying "yeah i dont know, sorry". Everything in pic related is literally made up.

>>24528704 (OP)
when you summarize a book like that you miss the artistry that went into making it.

Instead of getting married I've been hiring transexual prostitutes to insert metal rods in my urethra

>>24528704 (OP)
Nerds where a mistake.

>>24528913
That's by design so teachers can easil detect AI-written essays

>>24528704 (OP)
Lame meme.
If you are interested in reading a book, read it.
>>24528913
check picrel

>click 4chan
>get twitter
???

I want all techfags to die a horrible, painful, and humiliating death.

>>24528704 (OP)
woah...

it's kind of true

>>24529054
>where
troglodyte

>>24529359
total tech sector death is necessary for the survival of the human race this is Known

>>24528704 (OP)
kys

>>24528900
When I question some leftist belief it always tries its best to reassure me that I am not truly rejecting those views by asking for evidence, merely looking to affirm them in a reasoned and logical manner.
It assumes that I am going though some sort of existential crisis.

>>24529279
NTA and never read the book. Which of our three is accurate?

>>24529536
Your response is the only accurate one lol

>>24529510
Can you give any example of the "leftist beliefs" it evades?

>>24529540
>Your response is the only accurate one lol
I cheated.

>>24529279
I am this anon.
>>24529536
>>24529540
I wonder what's the reason behind; this is also quite concerning when you think about it, because you will never really know what is actual truth and what is not unless you really know the topic.

>>24529637
>Baudrillard brought up an interesting point in one of his later essays about the Buddhist "Rod" (daṇḍa) and its relation to the Lacanian Phallus. Can you explain it?
>The specific passage where Baudrillard discusses the Buddhist rod (daṇḍa) in relation to the Lacanian Phallus appears in his later writings on simulation and symbolic power, notably in *Symbolic Exchange and Death* (first published in French in 1976, English translation 1993). The quote is somewhat dense and elliptical, but here is the key passage:

>“The Buddhist rod (daṇḍa), a sign of power and discipline, is not a signifier of a real power but rather the symbol of power’s emptiness, the radical void that power occupies in the symbolic order. It functions like the Lacanian Phallus, not as an actual organ or force, but as a pure signifier of authority — the signifier that represents the place of lack, the absence without which desire would have no structure or object. The rod is thus the emblem of a power that is both there and not there, the hyperreal simulacrum of power itself.”

>Baudrillard uses this analogy to point out how power and authority are mediated through symbolic signs that do not necessarily correspond to any tangible or intrinsic force, reflecting both Lacan’s **psychoanalytic theory** and Buddhist **metaphysics of emptiness.**

>If you want the original French or the precise page number from *Symbolic Exchange and Death*, I can look it up or summarize the surrounding context for you!
I just had an enlightening conversation with ChatGPT about how the Lacanian Phallus related to the Buddhist "Rod". ChatGPT gave me sources, exposition, scholarly opinions, and the whole metaphysic and wonderous worlds of eastern philosophy and Baudrillard and Foucalt and Mill and even Plato ... Near the end, ChatGPT was pulling up direct, non-existent sources from the ancient "Aryans'.
All false. Every source either non-existent or irrelevant. At the end, I asked it why it was lying and it proceeded to gaslight me that its sources were real and that my version of SE&D was a different translation or "possibly modified".
Even with internet citation it does this, and for someone who doesn't know much about Lacan, Freud, Mahayana, and Baudrillard, all of this is very hard to verify or confirm without crawling through hours of sources. The Rod isn't even a real concept, but it is reasonable for Baudrillard to have made a comparison like this in reference to another similar idea, for example, the दण्ड is used in reference to punishment and measure in Buddhism; It's just not easy to verify if you aren't educated already.

* दण्डनीति daṇḍanīti referenced here for instance in the Danda Vagga, although this is not a scholarly work: http://home.nethere.net/dsparks/Narada/10-Danda%20Vagga.htm
Obviously creating a philosophical construct of it can be done, but is not necessarily accurate. In these cases, AI fails tremendously.

>>24529782
But what will happen is some idiot will take the ChatGPT output and put it on a website and now it becomes a reference for some other idiot to link to it from Wikipedia or make a Youtube video on it and so on.

All the AI LLMS are a plague on humanity

>>24529637
>because you will never really know what is actual truth and what is not unless you really know the topic.
Yes anon. There are many people out there who simply 'trust experts' and put off all thought on to them

>>24530154
Yes, AI now cites other false AI articles because the LLMs can't distinguish true from false. Once wikipedia and normal media is oversaturated with AI then there will be no more reliable way for AI to accurately obtain information. Even acadmic papers are being written by AI, and most peer review is not going to check literally every source. It's all downhill from here.

>>24530206
And AI is being trained on AI data and AI written comments. The LLMs are eating themselves.

>>24528943
>muh artistry

It's just a disposable consumer product same as any other.

>>24530897
Exactly. And like any other consumer product you aren't actually consuming it if all you are doing is reading a description of it.
Or do you think that if I describe to you the taste of a cheeseburger you can reasonably claim to have eaten it?

>>24531004
do you hear that? click-clack-click tap-a-tip-a-tap. It's the sound of anon pasting your reply into ChatGPT.

>>24531005
You did not eat the cheeseburger.

>>24530897
A book's contents are not just what is said, but how it's said. There's a reason why books are hundreds of pages long, and not just six words in interchangable order. Even if you summarize a book to its core themes, those themes are useless if you dont know the context in which they were explored.