Libb

I hope you won't mind my question.

The main issue with Deepseek is about censorship and privacy as the review suggests.

I don't use AI myself and have not read the article, but isn't there censorship and privacy issue at play also with every single non-Chinese AI out there?

I mean, can I ask one of those non-Chinese AI to make me, say, a pornographic image based on some famous person, or would it refuse? Could I ask a non-Chinese 'how can I make a bomb powerful enough so I can blow This or that (whatever one would not legally own)', or 'How should I mount a coup to take hold of power in my country?' or would it refuse to answer any of that? And then, subsidiary question, would any of these questions be reported to legal authorities?

Using your example, you could be lying.

True that. It's even more interesting considering 'Libb' is not my real name, just the one I fancy using online. But I would say that it's beside the point of your question (which was not about the possibility one would be intentionally telling lies, just how much data makes a 'fact' reliable), still, it's obviously related.

But then... considering that for some undisclosed reason you could not get access to more (source of) info, how would you decide if I say the truth about my name or not, when at the same time next to me some people (more than one) are claiming I'm a liar and that my name is Gertrude? Maybe that can't be decided? Or that should not be? Or mayb the dude claiming his name should be given some extra credit? Or maybe not (I may say I'm but I doubt Elon Musk will admit I'm his natural son and that I should therefore be entitled to a part of his huge piles of money, plus change for the trauma I endured ;)

If I was to consider myself dependent to anything, I would say I'm more of an analog dependency kind of guy than a digital one.

I mean, I have a computer and a phone (and a tablet) and I know how to use them, but I also don't feel much excitement building up thinking about using them, at all. On the other hand, I enjoy doing analog and IRL activities.

I keep hearing “it isn’t the quantity…” and I do not understand why it isn’t seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.

consider my flat-earthers example: the trustworthiness of the source(s) is at least as important. If I told you my pseudo is 'Libb' you can bet that it is indeed so, even if that just me saying it. And that would remain true if, out of nowhere, 100s of people started telling you my pseudo was in reality 'Mickey' or 'Gertrude'. I would still be Libb. Conclusion? All by myself, against that hypotheticla large crowd, I'm still a more reliable source of info concerning my identity.

On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha

No, and I'm almost wishing to see it. Almost.

I must admit the rise of flat earth theory came as a shock to me. I always have had a sweet spot for absurd theories but I could not imagine people taking those seriously. But maybe that's just me being manipulated/lobotomized by the government? As a matter of fact, I'm also a pro-vax and that may explain a lot :p

They licensed a lot of Disney, but Niko and Fantasio, Yoko Tsuno, and Asterix invoke such powerful nostalgia in a way that Disney, being so huge and a current part of the cultural zeitgeist, doesn’t.

So much :)

I would say, a good starting point would be a few examples of those so-called facts and their corresponding data.

Half-jokingly, I have little doubt I could find a lot of data demonstrating the earth is flat on flat-earth.org or whatever flat-earthers main website is called. But no matter the amount of data I would find there that still would not cut it as far as I'm concerned to accept their certainty as a fact—Incidentally, I also just answered your first question: it's not just the quantity of data, it's also its trustworthiness that should matter ;)

I really need to look into Asterix again.

Nodding approvingly ;)

I'm well into my 50s and there have been two comics I have never grew tired of. Quite the contrary, the more I read them the more I love them. That is Goscinny & Uderzo Astérix (the albums they created together, not so much what came later), and Bill Watterson Calvin & Hobbes.

And in my very humble opinion, and if I have anything to say on that matter, if heaven has to be a thing I wish for it to be a Watterson comic strip.

Like with questions posted in a forum: at least, having little more to read than just its title ;)

It is not anymore as far as I know, right?

Waterfox

Edit: on my computer only as I don't surf the web with my phone (I don't know if there is a mobile version of Waterfox)

Oh yes I have read about them in Polt’s website, but I did not know if they were good,

So far the third volume is the one I appreciate the least but, like I said, I'm also not the best horror stories reader. I'm a fan of real weird stuff, not the usual spooky things ;)

As I know you speak French, did you read the last Ploum’s book

No, I have not. I may have look ;)