Wait until you find out that in many states, you can walk into a business and buy a schedule I controlled substance, and the federal government has been ignoring it for over a decade!
I said GPT, not ChatGPT. But you could give ChatGPT the article, and ask it how it’s manipulative. For example, ask it whether or not the article states that there was an agreement between the buyer and the woman to sell the goat back (something that several people here have said with confidence).
I suspect GPT could write a longer, more comprehensive article (given all of the same information the journalist had access to)… and it would lead to completely different conclusions.
To me, the most important thing here isn't the lawsuit, or the goat theft, or the woman's or fair's actions at all - it's how journalism can be used to manipulate smart people into thinking one thing is true, when it's not, and what that means in a post-GPT world.
I think this type of journalism has been holding us back, as a society, and we now have the tools to fix it (or make it worse).
Where is the proof that the buyer agreed to reverse the transaction? If it were true, there was no reason to commit theft, as the buyer chooses what happens to the goat (not the middleman).
And of course, if they were to just shut up, that would encourage other goat thieves.
If this were true, why did she steal the goat? Can’t the owner just drop the charges? These articles all seem to only tell her side of the story, and clearly she has integrity issues.
I grew up on a farm - with goats - and I can certainly understand why you would want the police involved if someone comes onto your property and takes your goats. They’re easy to steal, and hard to get back. The alternative is to round up a posse.
Also - that quote doesn't sound like he agreed to sell it back to her.
The heartless person here is the one who decided to take her daughter's pet goat to a livestock auction (where it was explicitly clear that the goat would be turned into food).
Not objecting is not the same as agreeing to sell it back. If I email your office and ask if I can come take your car, and you don't respond, you didn't object, but you also didn't agree that I can come take your car.
Where I work, it would absurd to choose piracy over waiting a few months for approval - simply because of the risk to one’s career. Is this not the case elsewhere?
Consider this: if the license costs 1,000, most people who are pirating it can’t afford it. Those pirates are learning how to use your software, and when they get a job at a relevant firm, what software are they going to want their new bosses to buy? I think Photoshop grew quite a bit due to something like this (before they went with the subscription nonsense)