Mark Carney: No Charisma

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, AI-generated slop

I know you think that if you use that term you'll sound intelligent but really you just sound out of touch. You probably don't know much about computers but AI is actually considered to be a pretty powerful research tool these days  

So you were asked to come up with anything in the book that actually is substantially incorrect and in fact in three books you only came up with one really minor thing which isn't substantial

I'm not suggests that you don't think the books are wrong you just don't have a better argument other than they are AI generators.

I guess you thought if you put the word slop in there somewhere it would somehow make it worse. But you still have to defend that.

Can't refute the important parts of the book that he's referring to then that strongly suggests that they are fairly accurate.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 5/9/2025 at 7:40 PM, CdnFox said:

To be clear the last time it was harper not the banker. Harper got us through that crisis along with Jim flatterley.

Jim Flaherty. 

[Moonbox]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I know you think that if you use that term you'll sound intelligent but really you just sound out of touch. You probably don't know much about computers but AI is actually considered to be a pretty powerful research tool these days  

Yes, it certainly can be.  Check this out:

It can also be used to program shovelware, to barf out and spam click-bait articles/videos and flood social media with propaganda (slop).  

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Can't refute the important parts of the book that he's referring to then that strongly suggests that they are fairly accurate.

Two things:

1)  When the National Post publishes an article highlighting how this "author" published three different books within weeks of one another, when they weren't even capable of getting basic stuff right like where Carney went to university, and when the vendors all pull the books off the shelves within a few weeks, I'd say it strongly suggests the opposite.  

2)  Nobody else was foolish enough to fall for this and read it, let alone pay for it.  

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Jim Flaherty. 

Yes.  Jim, not Mark. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, it certainly can be.  Check this out:

It can also be used to program shovelware, to barf out and spam click-bait articles/videos and flood social media with propaganda (slop).  

Two things:

1)  When the National Post publishes an article highlighting how this "author" published three different books within weeks of one another, when they weren't even capable of getting basic stuff right like where Carney went to university, and when the vendors all pull the books off the shelves within a few weeks, I'd say it strongly suggests the opposite.  

2)  Nobody else was foolish enough to fall for this and read it, let alone pay for it.  

LOLOLOL  i love that you used an example that proved yourself wrong previously   

As you point out the AI was correct - for a 95 percent confidence, that is the constant as i mentioned in a previous thread.  But the confidence number itself is a variable  and THAT IS WHAT"S IN THE FORMULA  LOLOLOL  WE were looking at a poll with a 97 percent confidence as i recall? So you used the constant associated with the wrong variable in the equasion   LOLOL

But i appreciate you posting your own stupidity for the world to see   You suck at math. 

So the problem there wasn't the AI, the problem there was your compression.  The AI was correct and produced an accurate statement but YOU assumed that the 95 percent was a constant for all polls instead of a variable for every poll which it is. When you read it again, that becomes quite clear. 

Now i can take one look at what  you wrote and one look at the AI and see where the problem is. 

But for SOME reason you can't find ANY problems with THREE BOOKS worth of commentary, other than one non consequential error in one of them. 

So there you go.  

All you've proven with this is that ai is smarter than you, not that it's incapable of producing works that are valid. 

 

[herbie]

Mark Carney has no charisma.....

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, AI-generated slop that didn't even get a basic editing or fact-checking pass, self-published by a guy who released at least two other books on Carney within weeks of each other.  

If anyone was going to fall for that, of course it was you.  

Nobody spends more time on this forum crying about attacks and insults than you, and usually in the same breath as you're delivering attacks and insults.  🥴

Thats all you got is one mistake, out of 388 pages One mistake....on a book that gives carney a glowing review, and your still not happy, mind you voted liberal, i'd be a tad upset as well ....sorry your going to have to do better....

With all that education i was expecting a lot more from you, than mere insults, all that money and time in higher education to sharpen your wits on how to perfect the insult....what a waste....You've gone down hill in the last couple of years....

[Moonbox]

On 5/17/2025 at 5:26 PM, Army Guy said:

Thats all you got is one mistake, out of 388 pages One mistake....on a book that gives carney a glowing review, and your still not happy, mind you voted liberal, i'd be a tad upset as well ....sorry your going to have to do better....

Right, it was "just one mistake"...

When the AI can't even the most basic facts straight, a reasonable and thoughtful human being would suspect that there'd be a great many other errors in those 388 pages.  Nobody ever accused you of being thoughtful or reasonable though, so don't worry. 

I know it sucks being the sucker, so if you want to pretend that this book was legit despite the fact that it's been removed from sale everywhere and that this forum now comes up on the first page of a Google Search for it, go ahead.  

That doesn't change the reality.  It doesn't change the fact that you didn't just fall for AI-generated slop.  You paid for it.  

 

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Right, it was "just one mistake"...

When the AI can't even the most basic facts straight, a reasonable and thoughtful human being would suspect that there'd be a great many other errors in those 388 pages.  Nobody ever accused you of being thoughtful or reasonable though, so don't worry. 

I know it sucks being the sucker, so if you want to pretend that this book was legit despite the fact that it's been removed from sale everywhere and that this forum now comes up on the first page of a Google Search for it, go ahead.  

That doesn't change the reality.  It doesn't change the fact that you didn't just fall for AI-generated slop.  You paid for it.  

 

So you couldn't find any other mistakes  

Most books have at least one mistake despite numerous proofreading's. They address it in the next edition. 

A reasonable and thoughtful person would expect that if there were more mistakes they would have been found. 

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A reasonable and thoughtful person would expect that if there were more mistakes they would have been found. 

Who's to say they weren't? 

I'd say the fact that the book's been completely removed from stores/vendors, and that looking it up yields this forum on the first page of a Google Search suggests there was something fishy about it.  Not to you though...of course not.  

Speaking of a reasonable and thoughtful person, he/she wouldn't ask someone to find mistakes in a book that cannot even be found anymore.  

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you couldn't find any other mistakes  

You and Army Guy can wallow in the intellectual muck together.  🫂

Edited Tuesday at 10:08 PM by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Who's to say they weren't? 

If nobody says they were then they weren't

 

Quote

I'd say the fact that the book's been completely removed from stores/vendors, and that looking it up yields this forum on the first page of a Google Search suggests there was something fishy about it.  Not to you though...of course not.  

They took dr seuss off the shelves.

In any case, whether they feel there are issues with regards to the author or not the books either are right or they are wrong. If you can't address the actual content to explain why you disagree with it or why others have said they disagree with it or the like and all you can do is criticize the possible authorship then you are in essence conceding that the content is fine you just don't like the source

 

Quote

Speaking of a reasonable and thoughtful person, he/she wouldn't ask someone to find mistakes in a book that cannot even be found anymore.  

He/she presumably wouldn't be so daft is to claim there were errors unless they could demonstrate them. Again if all he/she was complaining about was the authorship and not the accuracy of the information that's fine but otherwise there's no particular reason to believe that the contents are substantially inaccurate. One error for three books worth of material hardly condemns the whole thing

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He/she presumably wouldn't be so daft is to claim there were errors unless they could demonstrate them.

I've demonstrated that it was it was written by AI, that Bloomberg discovered right at the beginning of the book that the AI couldn't get a detail as basic as where Carney went to university correct, and I've demonstrated that the book has been removed from sale/circulation by the vendors. 

Your donkey-brained conclusion:  

"Yerp yerp tortally legit source!" 🤡

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I've demonstrated that it was it was written by AI,

And as we discussed AI is actually a very powerful tool for writing and there's quite capable of writing a book that is both correct and even insightful. You're trying to blow AI off as being junk but at this day and age I don't think you understand the power that it has and what is capable of. You might refer to an AI book as being plagiarism or the like considering how it creates its content and the debate does range but you can't pretend that just because something is written by AI it has no accuracy

 

Quote

that Bloomberg discovered right at the beginning of the book that the AI couldn't get a detail as basic as where Carney went to university correct

And I pointed out that's not uncommon in books written by beverage run in the middle people. Seeing as they were checking it for errors you would think that if they're found any other errors they would come comment on it

Which is why my question to you was what in the books did you feel was inaccurate. And so far you've come up with absolutely nothing. The fact that it's AI does not in any way shape or form take away from its accuracy

 , and I've demonstrated that the book has been removed from sale/circulation by the vendors. 

Quote

 

Your donkey-brained conclusion:  

"Yerp yerp tortally legit source!" 🤡

 

My intelligence and learned conclusion is that you have no basis or grounds for dismissing the rest of the content of the books of which I believe there were three? To make completely ridiculous and illogical arguments to support your echo chamber bias

 

If you can't come up with anything wrong about the rest of the books or why you would disagree with them then you are conceding that's the best of your knowledge they are accurate and relevant. That is the intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Trying to dismiss it because it was written by AI is in no way shape or form reasonable or logical

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

My intelligence and learned conclusion

You could have stopped there and we'd have had just as good a laugh as if you continued.  

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you have no basis or grounds for dismissing the rest of the content of the books of which I believe there were three?

Other than that they were AI-generated slop that got something as basic as where Carney went to university wrong, and that they were all taken down and removed from sale shortly after being released...

CdnFox's intelijent and lernd conclusion:  

"YERP YERP TOTALLY LEGIT"  🤣

Edited Wednesday at 04:30 PM by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You could have stopped there and we'd have had just as good a laugh as if you continued.  

I've always believed that nervous laughter is your specialty  

 

 

Quote

Other than that they were AI-generated slop

Well then there must be a bunch of things it got wrong. Apperently despite looking they've only found one fairly minor bio error in 3 books 

So why is it slop?

The fact is you can't demonstrate that it is slop. So you're just saying it's slopped because you want it to be slapped because that suits your narrative.  Which makes what you're saying ... slop  

Bad news kiddo. The AI stuff is less sloppy than yours  

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well then there must be a bunch of things it got wrong. Apperently despite looking they've only found one fairly minor bio error in 3 books 

Riiight, and that's why all three books were removed from sale by the vendors, and why the National Post published an article about them...because of their accuracy.  

With donkey-logic like that, it's no wonder you're able to convince yourself you win all these debates.  🤣

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Riiight, and that's why all three books were removed from sale by the vendors,

Did they say they removed them for errors??

No?  Not because of that?

You realize all you're doing at this point is finding new and exciting ways to appear to be stupid using different language. You're back to the same point, you can't demonstrate that there's any substantial errors or give an example of one outside of one minor one for the three books.

So that's exactly the same as before. I'm actually a little disappointed in you that I would even need to explain that. You're desperate need to defend your echo chamber is clouding you're already subpar thinking even further. Is there or is there not something substantial about the book you disagree with as far as content?

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Did they say they removed them for errors??

Why don't we try your logic for a change:

Did they say they didn't remove them for errors?  

🤡🤡🤡

[Army Guy]

23 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Right, it was "just one mistake"...

When the AI can't even the most basic facts straight, a reasonable and thoughtful human being would suspect that there'd be a great many other errors in those 388 pages.  Nobody ever accused you of being thoughtful or reasonable though, so don't worry. 

I know it sucks being the sucker, so if you want to pretend that this book was legit despite the fact that it's been removed from sale everywhere and that this forum now comes up on the first page of a Google Search for it, go ahead.  

That doesn't change the reality.  It doesn't change the fact that you didn't just fall for AI-generated slop.  You paid for it.  

 

And your still going on about one mistake, but fail in any regard to prove otherwise....

AI is being used around the world to do alot of things including higher education....it seems it does not bother them or the users that use the damn thing....

This is all about you, having a bug up your arse....it is what you do, and once again you have not provided much to this conversation except go on about AI....just let it go man...

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Why don't we try your logic for a change:

Did they say they didn't remove them for errors?  

That's not actually my logic. Nor is that anybody's logic

Let me explain basic logic and reason to you. Or at least as it applies here

You are making the claim that the books being removed are a sign that they were inaccurate or untrustworthy.

Therefore the onus would be on you to demonstrate that this was the reason the books were removed.

If you can't then your point is invalid.

I have made no claims as to whether or not the books are valid or invalid, therefore there is no onus on me whatsoever to discuss why the books were removed. You made a positive claim as to why they were removed when you Tried their removal to their accuracy

 

I know that may be a lot for you to digest in one sitting. Give it some thought, maybe someone in grade five to explain it to you a couple times, come back and see if you've got it

How's your math lesson's going btw?  

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

With donkey-logic like that, it's no wonder you're able to convince yourself you win all these debates.  🤣

Yeah but donkeys have big dicks, how's yours?

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, Legato said:

Yeah but donkeys have big dicks, how's yours?

He literally is a big dick so he figures that counts  

[Moonbox]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Let me explain basic logic and reason to you. Or at least as it applies here

Oh boy.  This should be good.  😆

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You are making the claim that the books being removed are a sign that they were inaccurate or untrustworthy.

Yes.  That's called inferential reasoning.  If the books got removed shortly after being highlighted in a National Post article about AI spam and misinformation, and the AI that wrote it got something as basic as where Carney went to university wrong, it's probably wasn't very credible.  

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Therefore the onus would be on you to demonstrate that this was the reason the books were removed.

If you can't then your point is invalid.

No dumdum.  The fact that Amazon, Indigo etc didn't issue press releases, or that the author can't be reached for comment on why the books were removed doesn't somehow (magically) make them credible.   

Maybe you have some insights on who the author is, or why anyone would trust self-published AI generated spam?  No???

Thanks for the "logic" lesson!  🤡👌