Funny how you posted a screenshot and not a link to the video. I wonder why that would be. Here's an AI summary of what that video is.
Politician Kimi Onoda argues true diversity is respecting individuals, not categorization by attributes, criticizing how "diversity" efforts often impose stereotypes on women and minorities, citing her own experiences.
Yeah, I'm no fan, but its summarization skills aren't bad.
Call me jaded and/or fatigued but I don't care to sit through over an hour of foid babble.
So you posted this without the slightest check on what the content was, and ended up posting it with the suggestion that it was the opposite of what she actually said?
Yeah OP should have actually checked what he's talking about. But AI summaries are pretty inaccurate. Summaries of scientific papers tend to generalize the conclusions and leave out important details (and newer AIs are worse). Summaries from questions about "the news" are allegedly inaccurate 29% of the time and 53% have significant issues (but this study has a big conflict of interest). I don't have data on video summaries, but from what I've read they can make stuff up and don't understand things like sarcasm.
Funny how you posted a screenshot and not a link to the video. I wonder why that would be. Here's an AI summary of what that video is.
Sorry for bursting your bubble.
Oh, the AI said so.
Call me jaded and/or fatigued but I don't care to sit through over an hour of foid babble.
Yeah, I'm no fan, but its summarization skills aren't bad.
So you posted this without the slightest check on what the content was, and ended up posting it with the suggestion that it was the opposite of what she actually said?
I jumped to a conclusion based on a mixed female talking about "diversity" and "change." The only change Japan needs is to go back to pre-1945 law.
I notice you're not addressing her stance on "hate speech" either.
Turns out, she was criticizing those things. So it's all good now, or you still hate her?
Very perceptive. I didn't address something you didn't bring up about a person I don't know.
Yeah OP should have actually checked what he's talking about. But AI summaries are pretty inaccurate. Summaries of scientific papers tend to generalize the conclusions and leave out important details (and newer AIs are worse). Summaries from questions about "the news" are allegedly inaccurate 29% of the time and 53% have significant issues (but this study has a big conflict of interest). I don't have data on video summaries, but from what I've read they can make stuff up and don't understand things like sarcasm.
https://futurism.com/ai-chatbots-summarizing-research
https://www.dw.com/en/chatbot-ai-artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-google-gemini-news-misinformation-fact-check-copilot-v2/a-74392921
Yup. Anyone who uses AI summaries instantly has their opinions and retorts wholeheartedly dismissed with prejudice.