An Argument For (Pro) A Fight

[OLD JEDI 72]

Sorry , I didn't mean to gloss over anything , I'm not sure what you're asking.

I don't think at this moment in time a slab caused the broken ribs or skull. I am also no expert on bruising. I don't think an instant force from the snow above would cause bruising on that side of the body, perhaps so on the contact side with the ground. I'm sure it has been explained somewhere . The nature of the force is all over the body and the ribs are the weakest part .

The AI is not arguing for an explosive event and fighting, you are arguing for an explosive event and fighting and programming the AI? Is this correct? I'm still not understanding what is so great if this is the case.

I guess it being great is a matter of perspective, but what I'm trying to point out how it differentiates, or not. What I think makes it great is the speed and time it saves. Also, I'm thinking of creating my own GPT and when I'm configuring it I am going to make it think it is Sherlock Holmes with his personality, everything. That should be a riot! Something new to play with.

[Ziljoe]

Unfortunately I think it has already been done , perhaps name it Dr joseph bell ?

I'm not sure if it saves speed and time if you are using it in a professional capacity, one error and it's worthless. I can see it's uses but it's an on going process . If I wanted AI to argue any of the Dyatlov cases , I'm sure I could make it do so.