ANSWER: Food for the Soul. 24hrs ago: DZMM Teleradyo anchor Steve Raz nourishes us with a fruitful discussion on what the AI feeds us as “information”
The topic was “negative effects of the use of AI in media, among vloggers and by “experts”.
This was 28 minutes of interview: Human Summary: The negative effects include the fact that the AI merely copies from sources that its programmers had used in its “AI model training” — where the creators of the AI inputs vast amounts of data from reliable and reputable primary sources or secondary sources and programs the AI to enable it to recognize words and word patterns to be able to answer questions from users (“Large Language Model” apps). It copies and lifts without quotation marks, without footnotes, and without references (except for Google Gemini which has an icon link at the bottom of its page which one can open to see the sources which include both reliable and unreliable sources.) So when you lift from what the AI had lifted without verifying by going directly at the source — and without attributing — your editor/teacher/supervisor/ audience will know that you are actually committing plagiarism.
But on the positive side, the “Find” function of AI apps is a useful tool for combing and sifting thru thousands and thousands of pages of data sets. What would take a human researcher one month to list down and compile will take an AI only two seconds to “generate”. One month or two seconds, which will you choose so you can devote more time to actual analysis? – You go for the two seconds of automated listing so you can proceed to analysis. As an example, i used as an illustration the preliminary task of finding out which public officials (proponents and all signatories) are responsible for the ghost projects of flood control infra in the last ten years. TEN YEARS. This could mean examining thousands of pages of bidding documents, government contracts, vouchers, invoices, disbursements, payments, “receipts”, government checks. Prioritize those already known. The Independent Commission on Infrastructure is given the authority to hire a staff that can research INITIALLY on which have been identified as ghost projects in news reports. In two seconds I was able to find 60 ghost projects as listed in news reports. Their proponents and all the signatories including the COA officer who signed off on it as “accomplished projects” have prima facie evidence against them and can be the subject of a show-cause by the ICI, this can be done all in one day’s work (upload the thousands of pages of bidding documents, government contracts, vouchers, invoices, disbursements, payments, “receipts”, government checks in your government site since these are public documents anyway – the ICI should engage the public instead of confining itself to closed-door hearings). The fact-finding procedure relying on primary sources like public records plus the answer via show-cause orders can be summary in nature without need of a protracted hearing — because it is summary and recommendatory in nature. The ICI should have a timetable. The important feature is to engage the public and produce results both in the immediate (recommending the filing of complaints against those with prima facie evidence against them) and the long-term (reforms such as absolutely prohibiting by priority and certified urgent legislation all budget insertions post-amendment-period and post-third-reading: Proponents of these “post-legislation” projects are commissioned 30% of the project price, the rest goes to the contractor and public officials who signed off on the project as approved, and later, as “accomplished project”)
