the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence
Surprised you didn’t get downvoted here. It’s like if you tell people science is done by humans and humans arre flawed people flip out and call you a science-denier.
People on Lemmy like to argue and I’m taking a strong stance on something here. With those two things in mind, I’m expecting some level of push-back. (Which, admittedly, has yet to materialize.)
I think of Chat GPT like a sometimes-inaccurate-calculator. There may be some legitimate uses for the technology, but it’s still nice to know how to multiply numbers without it.
Dating scene analogy: Men are in a desert, Women are lost at sea. There is no water whatsoever for the men. The women don’t have access to drinkable water. Both are dying of dehydration.