Nah you know what, all these claims we have hard AI? You don't see people claim it explicitly but you see incredible artifacts. What is the deal? They are incredible! They cannot be believed! So just today I was reading an article on the China Times, in English, and it said all the elements recoverable from a salt flat, something something lithium strontium and strontium. 0 comments. So I post a comment, respectfully, I do respect China don't want to question them going against the grain, so I said "Strontium and strontium? Different isotopes?" So that's a machine mistake--which is fine, I don't discriminate against machines--or perhaps...just careless? Or different isotopes, so different subscripts that got lost in the medium. Many possibilities. At any rate, I sent the comment, took responsibility for it, and it's a typo so it's what you're supposed to do. It can happen to anybody.

Regardless the article had otherwise perfect spelling and grammar, along with www.rt.com the writing is very very polished, way better than American newspapers. And I like them more because they, like me, learned English overseas. Going to America fucks up your American English. It's best to learn English overseas, don't learn it by living in America. Just become lazy, stop actually printing a page out and taking an actual red pen at it, then updating, repeatedly. There's no substitute. And the articles make more sense, all written by bilinguals. Same way I prefer watching a movie in English language, with the subtitles in Spanish, redundant information, otherwise it kind of sucks.

The more sophisticated the machine learning heuristics--not algorithms, never algorithms--the more embarrassing the error. Less frequent, but more embarrassing. Can't say it applies to China Times, but it's always ambiguous, man or machine error? In the end it's the same, man communicates through machines, like computers, made by man.

Only exception is face-to-face communication.