The pill strip on top with a list of video topics
There’s one reason not to block this: all the way on the right of that list is a “new to you” feed button, which is pretty neat to try sometimes.
The pill strip on top with a list of video topics
There’s one reason not to block this: all the way on the right of that list is a “new to you” feed button, which is pretty neat to try sometimes.
How to upvote post on lemmy tha ks
I believe he was making a comparison to show how dumb “because they believe it” is as a justification.
You have no idea what’s going on.
Ironic coming from the guy who doesn’t understand an extremely simple concept that two people have patiently tried to explain over the course of five comments. Of course instead of just listening to what we have to say, you insist on accusing me of things that have no basis in reality. Your insistence to categorize people has led you to mischaracterize me, and I doubt I’m the first one. I’m going to assume you frequently have these sorts of arguments, so please step back and take this opportunity to analyze why they keep ending up this way. I will not respond further, I’ve spent too much time on this already; if you’re still confused, reread the thread. Goodbye.
So what you’re saying is, their belief in their position doesn’t make it right/wrong. It’s the position itself that makes it right/wrong. That’s what we’ve been trying to say.
No, I’m making the same point as @redisdead. Everyone says things because they believe them. That doesn’t make what they say correct/valid/etc just because of that belief. I actually think that veganism is a morally good position, but the justification of that position being “because I believe it” means literally nothing.
I’m saying that the idea that something is justified because it is believed makes no sense. Apologies for being unclear.
Well, it’s what they believe
I’m sorry but this is a dogshit justification in nearly every situation
I think that’s what they said. Also is your ` key broken
This is every school surveillance software
I would expect “faster” to be a way
I feel like the real answer is and has been for a long time some sort of distributed moderation system. Any individual user can take moderation actions. These actions produce visible effects for themself, and to anyone who subscribes to their actions. Create bot users who auto-detect certain types of behavior (horrible stuff like cp or gore) and take actions against it. Auto-subscribe users to the moderation actions of the global bots and community leaders (mods/admins) and allow them to unsubscribe.
We’d probably still need some moderation actions to be absolute and global, though, like banning illegal content.
Some sort of “report as bot” --> required captcha pipeline would be useful
Ad hominem is when you attack the entity making a claim using something that’s not relevant to the claim itself. Pointing out that someone (general someone, not you) making a claim doesn’t have the right credentials to likely know enough about the subject, or doesn’t live in the area they’re talking about, or is an LLM, aren’t ad hominem, because those observations are relevant to the strength of their argument.
I think the fallacy you’re looking for could best be described as an appeal to authority fallacy? But honestly I’m not entirely sure either. Anyways I think we covered everything… thanks for the debate :)
Ah, now I feel bad for getting a bit snippy there. You were polite and earnest as well. Thanks for the convo 🫡
Ok, I get what you’re saying, but I really don’t know how to say this differently for the third time: that’s not what ad hominem means
Ok, but if you aren’t assuming it’s valid, there doesn’t need to be evidence of invalidity. If you’re demanding evidence of invalidity, you’re claiming it’s valid in the first place, which you said you aren’t doing. In short: there is no need to disprove something which was not proved in the first place. It was claimed without any evidence besides the LLM’s output, so it can be dismissed without any evidence. (For the record, I do think Google engages in monopolistic practices; I just disagree that the LLM’s claim that this is true, is a valid argument).
To me, all the mental gymnastics about AI outputs being just meaningless nonsense or mere copying of others is a cop-out answer.
How much do you know about how LLMs work? Their outputs aren’t nonsense or copying others directly; what they do is emulate the pattern of how we speak. This also results in them emulating the arguments that we make, and the opinions that we hold, etc., because we those are a part of what we say. But they aren’t reasoning. They don’t know they’re making an argument, and they frequently “make mistakes” in doing so. They will easily say something like… I don’t know, A=B, B=C, and D=E, so A=E, without realizing they’ve missed the critical step of C=D. It’s not a cop-out to say they’re unreliable; it’s reality.
That’s part of the fun. If has to become unfunny before it can evolve into something funny again
Bean stroganoff
Spoiler tags are very unstandardized between the different UIs. It workson the web ui