jerkface

"Good" means different things in different contexts. Here you mean it as something like "user friendly". Of course, there are other priorities that someone else could call "good". It's not a helpful word for honest debate, but it's very convenient for hiding a bunch of semantic puns and confused reasoning behind.

He, and literally every other human in Middle Earth, not to mention every elf, dwarf, and maia, and presumably every ork, uruk-hai, trent, balrog, troll, and loreless abomination as well.

You can make money on YouTube without having a monetized account. But you can also make money on PeerTube in exactly the same way.

Normal people couldn't figure out the "mail merge" function of their 1980-era word processor, and haven't figured it out since.

We should have law that any business that wants to make money selling prepared meals must ensure that a person can live sustainably off any individual meal. Food is made as addictive as possible without any concern for whether it is still food. This goes bad places.

See, you are arguing from your feelings. You are assuming that anyone who criticizes your position necessarily has a bunch of other qualities. You're arguing against a voice in your head, not me. I haven't used AI in months. You don't know a damn thing about me, but your arguments are suddenly all about me. As though the things I do and think have any bearing on the validity of my claims. As though you can just ad hominem yourself out of this situation. Why not call me a loser too? That'll do it.

<3

I don't need to defend AI. I don't have to have a position on AI. My position here is that if readers genuinely give a fuck about, for example, water usage, then their behaviour would be different on this other issue. The moment AI leaves their head, they stop giving even a single fuck about water usage. I am demonstrating that the argument being presented is facile. Deeper than that, I am demonstrating that people are reacting without thought, reflexively, without comprehending their own actions. It is a moral panic and that is how I am engaging with it.

imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI.

So you think it's strange to address the more damaging behaviour with higher priority. Why is that?

And why do you give a pass to people complaining about water usage and climate effects with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still rotting between their teeth while meanwhile condemning the same of people using AI? As an informed advocate for saving the world, you are no doubt aware that animal consumption is by orders of magnitude the more significant issue. But either way, surely the consistent position is that both are harmful, and the greatest improvements lie in reducing animal consumption; reducing AI usage cannot make a fraction of the difference.

So? That has nothing to do with the argument at hand, it's an ad hominem.

Fuck cars.