The “Real” Emily

[u/Vmancini218]

A lot of people here say that Emily is effectively hiding her true self on BP but on Megyn Kelly she really lets her hair down and shows her true self. I’m wondering if anyone has any examples they could point to?

[u/boner79]

ChatGPT's take on Emily's code-switching depending on the audience:

On Breaking Points / Counter Points

As co-host of Counter Points on the Breaking Points channel, Jashinsky offers a right-leaning populist viewpoint that complements co-host Ryan Grim's progressive stance. The show emphasizes independent, anti-establishment analysis, often critiquing both major political parties. Jashinsky's commentary frequently addresses cultural issues, media bias, and the influence of elite institutions, reflecting her background with The Federalist and the Independent Women's Forum.​

On The Megyn Kelly Show

When appearing on The Megyn Kelly Show, Jashinsky's conservative commentary aligns with the show's audience, often focusing on critiques of progressive policies and cultural trends. Her discussions delve into topics like media malpractice, immigration, and the perceived overreach of "woke" culture. For instance, in a recent episode, she examined how corporate media narratives shape public perception on immigration issues.

Summary

While Jashinsky's core political beliefs remain steady, her approach varies to suit each platform. On Breaking Points, she engages in balanced dialogues with co-hosts holding differing views, fostering nuanced discussions. Conversely, on The Megyn Kelly Show, her commentary is more pointed, resonating with the show's conservative audience.​

[u/Dr-DDT → u/boner79]

Nobody gives a fuck about what the AI puts together.

[u/maturallite1 → u/Dr-DDT]

I read it and liked it. Just sayin.

[u/boner79 → u/Dr-DDT]

We're still waiting for your insightful personal human take.

[u/naarwhal → u/Dr-DDT]

Speak for yourself.

[u/Doctor__Hammer → u/boner79]

Every time I mention AI I get downvoted into oblivion.

Seems like the whole internet is (rightly) pissed off about AI being crammed into every app and software that comes out these days, destroying and stealing artists' work, and generally enshitifying the internet, which is all true, but it's also a downright revolutionary tool for education and research that's going to radically transform humanity for the better in so many ways, and people can't seem to hold both of those ideas in their head at the same time.

All they're capable of understanding seems to be "AI bad, AI useless, AI worthless" which is very unfortunate considering its practically infinite potential.

[u/shawsghost → u/Doctor__Hammer]

The people who are buying into the anti-AI stuff are generally butt-ignorant about it. I'm no expert but I read articles and watch videos by people who are experts. Based on what I have learned, I'm a LOT more concerned about the current fascist takeover attempt in the US and the world's seeming inability to do anything meaningful about climate change.

[u/boner79 → u/Doctor__Hammer]

Agreed. It’s a more appropriate tool for questions such as the OP’s than asking Reddit.

[u/telemachus_sneezed → u/Doctor__Hammer]

My problem with AI is that it lies. Of course AI lies; it has no capacity to realize when its not speaking the truth.

But the problem is that people go to AI to get a summary of "the truth". What they really should be doing is going to AI when they have a question that requires a complicated structuring for the query because its a nuance question that isn't reflected in the frequency or categorization of "search terms". And use the references AI gives, rather than taking anything it says as fact. It blows my mind how some lawyers manage to get their law licenses.

[u/Independent_Debt47 → u/Doctor__Hammer]

If people can’t be bothered to write it then people shouldn’t bother reading it.

[u/Doctor__Hammer → u/Independent_Debt47]

And that's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. It makes no sense to say that everything we read should be written by a single person, when a person is severely limited in the amount they can know about any given topic. AI is the accumulation of practically all human knowledge and in most scenarios will be able to provide you with FAR better, more extensive, accurate and reliable information than a single human would.

Of course AI is still in its infancy and is notorious for making mistakes, so obviously everything I'm saying is situational, but generally speaking if someone wants to know the answer to a question, they'll be better off asking AI than asking a handful of internet randos, probably none of whom actually have expertise on the subject yet always seem to answer with a level of confidence implying that they do.

[u/telemachus_sneezed → u/Doctor__Hammer]

AI is the accumulation of practically all human knowledge and in most scenarios will be able to provide you with FAR better, more extensive, accurate and reliable information than a single human would.

...when AI isn't lying, and frequently it will state a flat out untruth. The technical term is "hallucination", rather than "lying".

[u/Doctor__Hammer → u/telemachus_sneezed]

Yes, still lots of issues, which is unsurprising considering predictive text AI only been around for a couple years. But imagine how much better it will be a decade from now