LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE BETWIXT, BETWEEN, BELOW AND BELOVED, BACK FOR A REPEAT ENCORE PERFORMANCE AND HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION "WHAT IS THE SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING BACK", THE ONE, THE ONLY:

MECHOMAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

-muffled sounds of gorilla cheering-

Nebraska is 77,347 square miles

"My word, what an incredibly vast size - and you say they fight dragons there? And the streets are paved with DDR5?? Oh it sounds a loverly place, this 'Nee-bra-skah'! How are more people not talking of these wonders???" Seriously, how did you think this was going to go - I open this up, see you know Exactly How Big Nebraska Is and just faint dead at the realization I'll never defeat you and your monstrously huge stack of 3rd grade US geography flash cards? For fucks... you're already trying to throw 'Confirmation Bias' out there like a rhetorical pokemon, and now you're following that up with the devastating one-two combination punch of "Fascinating Nebraska Facts"??? Oh be still my cold-feeling legs, Mecho's really got us THIS TIME!

You might genuinely be the first person who's ever cared enough about nebraska to look up how big it is - hell even nebraska doesn't care about nebraska. But here's some more nebraska facts you can use:

• Their state bird is a hand turkey.
• Their state flower is "King Arthur All-Purpose"
• Their state motto is "Definitely more than 75,000 square miles of land!".
• Their primary export is tourism brochures with titles like:
  • "Nebraska! We're a state!"
  • "Nebraska: Come see our Quite Big Rock!"
  • "Experience colonial life at the Nebraska Museum of Dysentery!"
  • "If you ever want to see your husband alive again, Visit Lovely Nebraska!"

​
Step it up dude, this is laaaaaaaaame.

There was so much superfluous nonsense in your comment that I only skimmed it.

Hmm. You know, performatively signaling your disinterest by implying my comment is so beneath you that you didn't even read it was lame and transparent when all those other people did that to your first comment, and it's lame and transparent here too. Nobody ever even means it - they'll claim they did, but humans are just too curious to resist the tantalizing prospect of finding out what's in the box!

But that said, the second half here:

Frankly, it isn’t worth my time trying to decipher whatever it is you think you’re being clever about when you aren’t.

No you're dead on with this, it really isn't worth worrying your pretty little head by trying to grasp the subtle nuances of my (checks notes) ... elaborate dick jokes. Honestly, I had to stop writing to your level a while ago because I ate all my crayons. All that excess verbiage and imagery you want me to believe you didn't read? All that purple prose? Overworking it to where there's far more gilding than lily? That's to amuse myself (well, and the audience). I've gotta do something to keep myself from getting bored here since you're clearly not up to the task. I mean, god, you're trying to dunk on me with Nebraska facts. Nebraska. Facts. Son you don't just "not have game", your game has been stolen and you're halfway through filing a police report about the group of raccoons that just beat you up and ran off with your limited edition Big Bang Theory™ Monopoly set.

Nebraska.
Facts.

C'mon son.

Anyways, because I know you don't like too much writing, here's a selection of quick little rapid-fire responses for you:

At this point, I would normally devolve into name-calling and being outright mean

You sound like an idiot parading around as an intellectual, and frankly, it’s becoming kind of gross.

^-mechoman444^

Lmfao one sentence. One sentence. You couldn't keep up the act until the next paragraph even. For nebraska's sake man, what are you doing?

More importantly, I never said you made a straw man argument.

Um...

It is ironic that you do not understand what a straw man argument is, cannot use the term correctly, and then proceed to commit one against me.

-muffled sounds of gorilla dunking-

You’ve already decided that any evidence I present will be dismissed because you apparently cannot fathom a circumstance in which AI is useful.

Uh....

[...] I have seen no good outright AI content. As a tool it can be situationally useful, [...]

I’ll reiterate the point you have completely failed to address throughout this entire conversation: you cannot simply write a prompt into a flagship LLM and expect it to produce a fully finished, 30-minute production. That premise is fundamentally flawed, and at this point, the joke has run its course. It’s simply not funny anymore.

lmfao - we now go live to literally the second sentence I said to you:

It’s an exaggeration to imply that people type literally one sentence in and produce art yes, but that’s not the complaint.

Also, It is still beyond funny how you keep defining straw man and not understanding it

Look, there's only two realistic options here. The first one is that you're genuinely too dumb to be able to understand the wikipedia definition of straw man (just in case, here's the simple english version) - and I think we can both agree that I'm right and you're clearly not so painfully, stratospherically dumb as for that to be the case.

So that leaves us only with the second option (which is, lets be honest, pretty transparently the correct one):

You've long since realized I do know exactly what I'm talking about, but since defending your argument is out of reach, you've shifted focus to trying to "win" (by the internet's terms, "not show any weakness or admit any fault, and have the other person give up first") the interaction. So now you're repeating "Oh lel, U're so wrong you don't even know how wrong you are! I can't behlieave ur sthil so wr0ngz0rs abt Strawmen kek, topkek" like an incantation. You know that when I do it to you it produces a strong emotional reaction, evoking impotent rage and a desperate need to avoid having to admit to yourself that you've been outclassed, and you're assuming that when you do it back, it'll have the same effect.

But like... you're just not any good at this?

You act like you're bringing heat to the kitchen, but you seem blissfully unaware that this is a blast furnace, and you didn't remember put on your asbestos underpants today. You can stand there with a skillet and talk about cooking the perfect crispy Narwhal Bacon, but everyone else can clearly see the skillet is melting, the bacon is charcoal and your pants have just caught on fire.

Look just... for a moment, I'll stop pretending we're not on the same page here.

The simple fact is that I'm so far out of your league we're not even playing the same sport. Your goal here is to performatively demonstrate how unaffected by what you think are attempts to compete with you - to show no weakness, know no fear, stand as his bulwark against the darkness, yadda yadda. You think that this must be frustrating me, and that by causing me frustration you can claim a victory. But dude, I don't just don't think about it like that! This isn't about 'winning' for me - no, I get excited when people reply like this. I get my partner to read these replies because they also think this is fun. My trophy shelf is about to collapse under the weight of all the participation trophies alone, and I just don't see a need to add anything else to that precipitously teetering mountain of victories.

This isn't a competition.
This isn't some debate where I gnash my teeth while figuring out my next move in our grand dialectic chess match.

This is what I do to relax when a question at work is just too tedious-but-challenging and I need a break to do something fun. This is what I do in bed at night with my partner, reading out your comments to each other in silly voices before we go to sleep.

You're strutting around, acting like you're some noble champion locked in a tremendously one-sided battle of wits with a plebeian challenger, blinded by ego to your undeniable might, when you're somehow blissfully unaware that bitch, you're my candy-crush.

I wrote a whole thing in retort to this and then I copied and pasted the wrong thing and I lost all of it.

I am genuinely saddened to learn this, this has been a rollicking good time. We've been doing voices. Full disclosure, they're very funny. Darn this is a loss. That other comment you deleted barely had anything fun in it at all, too. Damn shame.

... Though, I suppose it does track that you still want credit for all the effort you put in but that resulted in no product.

Bottom line, you don't know what a straw man is. You're still using it incorrectly.

You've repeatedly used a logical fallacy, misinterpreted what that fallacy actually is, and then tried to use your misunderstanding of it against me. The irony is that this is extremely common.

~~Tried to use it against you? "Tried"?? Buddy I am the goddamn Harlem Globetrotters of dunking on your ass over this. I've succeeded at using this against you so hard I'm writing a book called "How I used it against them: The Strawman Story"~~

Sigh. Okay, I'll be polite. Sorry, long day.

Look, insisting I don't know what I'm talking about is a losing strategy. I know I know what I'm talking about, because I talk about stuff a lot and my momma says I'm real good at it, and my momma ain't no liar. And I'm well aware of the meanings behind the terms I've been using. Yes, what you did initially is absolutely a straw man - I'm going to just borrow the damn formula from wikipedia and fill in the blanks mad-libs style:

Person 1 (Us) asserts proposition X (AI is garbage at producing art because it removes the skill which gives character to the work and limits creativity in ways that stiffle originality and railroads your vision)

Person 2 (You) argues against a superficially similar proposition Y (AI is bad at art because all an AI artist does is type in a single sentence and Pflrrt! out farts a movie), as though an argument against Y (bad bcz one sentence) were an argument against X (bad bcz no character).

You're doing a goddamned triple-axel backflipping strawman. Taylor Swift is singing a ballad about that time she broke up with a guy because he was a man filled with straw and he cheated on her with you. The entire inter-collegiate "Its A Strawman" marching band strikes up their classic all-tuba rendition of "enter the gladiators". It smells of hot buttered popcorn, freshly mown grass and the lingering scent of the straw bale you're sitting on. You look at your sweetheart and feel the moment is perfect. Carefully you reach up and brush their straw-blond hair out of their face. The music swells and, as you lean in for that first momentus kiss, fireworks erupt in the night sky, blooming ephemeral flowers the size of a neighborhood, each one hurling shimmering petals of flame down towards you, their flight coloring the scene the gentle golden-yellow of a summer strawman.

(It's a callback to when I implied you banged a strawman earlier. Subtle, I know. God damn I'm funny.)

I don't need to provide you with any proof because you're not going to accept it anyway.

"Golly gee batman, that's really convenient how they said could provide proof then said they didn't have to! Man. You know, it's so convenient it's almost like..."

"Great scott Boy Wonder, you're right! The piddler never had any proof all along! It was all a bluff! Quickly, to the Flatmobile!"

-muffled sounds of gorilla violence-

Anyways. Honestly, I'm still waiting on that example of a strawman I was using in an argument. Genuinely. I'm pretty sure I didn't use one, but I might have skirted too close dickarus-style at one point with an appeal to absurdity. I think I dodged it by being explicit about what I was doing, but I'm curious to hear your opinion there.

Also those Objective Categories of Quality, really want to hear more about those. That'll be fun.

Ohhh fine, if you want a quote-heavy wall of text, you can have one. As a treat.

My example is not a straw man because I did not substitute one argument for another—specifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didn't even make a substantive argument in the first place. I was merely expressing, as I have said approximately a thousand times now, that the joke has run its course.

When you asserted that your position really is that people hate AI because of (the substantive argument - that this is a true assertion because [your evidence]) the false impression held by the group that there is no human labor or skill-based human input utilized in producing finished works with AI components, you were creating a strawman. You substituted that excessively simplistic argument for the real one, which has been explained several times. That Is the strawman I've been referencing.

You have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand what a straw man is, how the fallacy is actually used, or how to identify one.

What a suspiciously convenient and yet thus far unfounded assertion. Strangely, you have yet to hilight a strawman I've put forward - possibly because you are projecting your own lack of familiarity with the term, more likely because I haven't made one. Who's to tell? (me, I'm the one who tells).

The channels I provided do not make AI slop.

Mm...hmm.

you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that AI can produce something worthwhile

Yup.

or be used to do something genuinely useful?

Don't think I made that claim anywhere...

the quality of the conversation tends to degrade significantly.

There was no conversation before this happened, so it can't have degraded vs. what came before...

At this point, I would almost venture to say that you would label anything a straw man if it doesn't conform to whatever position you already hold.

"Behold, a (straw) man!"

But there are objective categories of quality

Alright, y'know what? I'm calling this one out. Put up or shut up time, budski; lets see a few of these "objective measures of quality." Even stupidly simple measures like "It's not static" "shapes are identifiable as distinct objects" and "did not induce vomiting" are all subjective so... yeah, lets go. Come on. Chop chop. Example time.

And why on God's green earth would I ever go back to Reddit when I have people like you to talk to here on Lemmy?

... Self respect, probably. This redditor shit, like asserting your intellectual superiority, or claiming their argument is a strawman, or (one you seem to fall back on constantly) "claiming that the other person doesn't even understand their own argument so clearly how could they have a point"? That just doesn't fly here. You should know that by now. You've been trying that same tired shtick for at least days and it hasn't once worked. Honestly, has it ever worked for you on lemmy?

Lol. A reasonable conclusion to draw when someone asks a question is that they do not know the definite answer - thereby you must have assumed it is at least possible the quote is worthy of attribution, which is to no small degree flattering. I thank you for the compliment, as unintentional as it was.

Phew, now that that's out of the way, lets address the rest of this!

Rather flattering you assume it's worthy of being attributed...

And we who did all envy their foresight...

... yes?

1.) ...Do you often encounter people who imply you're having sex with formal logical fallacies? Or just maybe could I have been using the term colloquially.

2.) Well yes. If you read the next paragraph in your comment, you'll see an excellent example of someone attempting to neg another user into watching a bunch of fucking awful slop content on youtube by implying they aren't being fair to people who make "phenomenal" videos.

You're a perfect example of the exact kind of person I was talking about. You're insisting, again, that the joke is no longer relevant because we should be respecting the time these people put in to using AI to produce art. Thank you! I couldn't have made my point nearly as well without your help.

I think that's a pretty good interpretation; really the only thing I have to add is that I think of all the artistic skills, the most fundemental is the one that lets you translate from your idea to a real, tangible creation.

I was signing out of work when I got a meeting invite to "Demo new features and discuss any requests/demands for final implementation" tomorrow so pray for me the subtext is about to become the text.

You're railing against a strawman here. It's an exaggeration to imply that people type literally one sentence in and produce art yes, but that's not the complaint. The issue people here have is that AI "artists" take the part that requires actual skill and scoop it out, then fill the void back in with a gloopy beige paste. Then, like you're doing here, they demand to be taken seriously and/or at least have their time respected because of all the externalities, like the time spent washing the scoop or choosing the exact right consistentcy of gloop to fill it with.

Generating five minutes worth of sexy women shooting orcs that explode into papercut gore confetti takes a lot of time. Stitching those together into a 3 minute video takes a lot of time. None of that is time that I give a shit you spent doing - it's like buying out a vending machine, putting it all on fancy plates and demanding I call you a chef. Sure the skittles look kinda pretty, but all the careful arrangement in the world won't make them taste better.