I _have_ seen Anora and I think that description is perfectly fine. It certainly isn't "hallucinations and nonsense" which is what the parent comment is claiming. What part of that description do you consider "wrong"?
The comment thread you're at the end of started with this:
> I would expect nothing but hallucinations and nonsense coming out of any LLM regarding recently-released movies (aka. the ones you often find on flights).
The comment that replied to it (the one that you're arguing against) provides evidence that proves it wrong. You are correcting someone who isn't incorrect, and I think the person you're responding to is very justified in saying you're moving the goalposts here.
A reply downthread is not an endorsement of everything said upthread. I'm happy to discuss the points I made, but I’m not going to be made to defend something I didn’t say.
Well if you're not endorsing what was said upthread, then your comment is a complete non-sequitir. The parent comment said "LLMs can't give movie recommendations for recent movies because they'll hallucinate or spout nonsense", the next comment responds with a list of accurate movie recommendations, and then you come in and say this:
> Those descriptions are less detailed than the information you will see on basically any streaming interface and yet it still manages to not being very good.
The points you made were not relevant to the discussion at hand. It's like if people were having a debate about where to find the best tacos in town and you stepped in to say "tacos aren't as good as hamburgers, you know" and then got upset that nobody wanted to debate that point with you. It's not everybody else's fault if you don't understand how conversations work!
I don’t know why you are letting that one reply define the bounds of this conversation. My comment was directly relevant to the first comment in this thread and the comment I was replying to.
Someone once told me "Anytime you feel defensive when you're not being attacked, that's a feeling you should examine."
There's an awful lot of defensive comments in here! Nobody's forcing you to stop eating red meat. If you feel ambivalent or defensive about that choice, it's fine and healthy to say "I know eating this red meat is riskier than eating white meat or a vegetarian meal, but I'm going to choose to eat it anyway because that's my preference."
What I'd urge you NOT to do is to try to deny or belittle the source that's providing the information that makes you uncomfortable. That leads to all kinds of bad mental patterns!
This research, and increasing its entrance into the zeitgeist, is also valuable to give doctors a foundation to “prescribe” diet changes.
When confronted with chemo, it has been my experience that, doctors are reluctant to talk about nutrition. (I speculate, over a concern for their own ignorance, ala risking getting caught up in fad or woo science)
Sometimes even going hard in the other direction, saying “eat whatever you want!”, when study after study show a positive correlation with nutrition based methods targeting specific cancers and complementing certain chemo “cocktail”s.
I do this, but it's to block people from further-back rows from charging forward and skipping the line to deplane. Which is a problem I feel like has gotten much worse in the last 5 years or so.
