mechoman444

Nebraska is 77,347 square miles—roughly the size of your confirmation bias. I hope that helps.

There was so much superfluous nonsense in your comment that I only skimmed it. Frankly, it isn't worth my time trying to decipher whatever it is you think you're being clever about when you aren't.

More importantly, I never said you made a straw man argument. I'm saying you're demonstrating confirmation bias. You've already decided that any evidence I present will be dismissed because you apparently cannot fathom a circumstance in which AI is useful.

That, by itself, makes any meaningful conversation between us impossible. At this point, I would normally devolve into name-calling and being outright mean, but honestly, I'm just tired of arguing this point. You sound like an idiot parading around as an intellectual, and frankly, it's becoming kind of gross.

To be consistent, 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.

Also, It is still beyond funny how you keep defining straw man and not understanding it. It is truly impressive that you keep doing this. I wish I could be there when the realization dawns on you and you get that cold feeling in your legs that you made it completely fool of yourself.

1000 lib-tards a day. 1000 wokies and 1000 dei hires to keep him alive.

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

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

You have confirmation bias the size of Nebraska. I don't need to provide you with any proof because you're not going to accept it anyway. You've literally indicated that twice at this point.

I will simply once again reiterate my point. Pipeline production of AI generated media isn't as simple as writing a prompt into grok and having it churn out a fully completed 30-minute video. That is not a straw man. That's hardly even an argument. It is more objective observation than anything else. The joke is on its course. It is irritating and no longer funny.

My argument this entire time has been that this joke has run its course. People are not claiming that they are “AI artists” simply because they put a prompt into an LLM.

Obviously, you are capable of understanding that. My example was hyperbolic and exaggerated. You provided me with the definition of a straw man and still somehow have no idea what a straw man actually is.

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.

The channels I provided do not make AI slop. I would venture to say that, to you, literally everything is AI slop. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that you have seen nothing generated by AI that interests you. That is, in itself, a massive example of confirmation bias. Why should I give much weight to your opinion when you have already made it clear that you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that AI can produce something worthwhile or be used to do something genuinely useful?

What I've noticed in general is that, as soon as someone starts throwing around the names of logical fallacies, the quality of the conversation tends to degrade significantly. 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. 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.

And yes, I fully acknowledge that you may not like the same things I like, particularly when it comes to art. That's perfectly reasonable. But there are objective categories of quality that you can acknowledge even when something isn't to your personal taste, and you seem completely unwilling to concede that possibility when AI is involved.

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?

Also the formatting of your... Jesus man. Way too much effort. I have to go up and open every spoiler tag just to respond to what you're saying. Maybe just right in paragraphs so it's easier to work with.

I'm asking you a question; the exact opposite of making an assumption.

Wow.

So I wrote everything you see above.

It's not ai generated. Those are my words.

Prove it. Show me evidence that there is an abundance of people claiming that they are artists because they write a prompt into an llm.

Are you quoting somebody or did you make that nonsense up?

So, you are correct. There is no way for an LLM or AI application to generate the exact image inside your head. And nobody has ever seriously claimed that it can. I mean, maybe Sam Altman has said some stupid shit like that, because he is known for doing so, but realistically, nobody is arguing that this is currently possible.

There are some phenomenal AI works out there. I've recommended some channels that I really like, and I even do the role-playing thing from time to time to pass the time at work and whatnot.

But ultimately, yes, that is a limitation of the technology. I think we're arguing against two completely separate things here.

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. You are inventing a position that is easier to argue against, despite the fact that I never took that position in the first place.

I have no idea what having sex with machines has to do with a straw man argument. Nor is there some way to use the term "straw man" colloquially that would make your usage correct. If anything, that tells me you do not understand what "colloquially" means either.

I did not say the joke is irrelevant. I said the joke has run its course and has become irritating. There is a distinction. More importantly, that is not how people are actually making good AI content. The sources I provided are anything but slop. They demonstrate legitimate uses of AI tools and actual production pipelines being used to create worthwhile content.

Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You may not find that content interesting, and that's fine. But I would assume at this point that your inability to acknowledge when something is good or bad has more to do with the fact that AI was involved than with the actual quality of the work.

Why are you people like this on this platform? You literally cannot rebut what I actually said, and you cannot defend your own position, so you invent a different position that is easier to attack. Stop doing this. It is ridiculous.

It is okay to admit that some AI-generated content is good. It is also okay to admit that some AI-generated content is bad. Saying, "Hey, this is actually good," is not betraying the cause. You are allowed to acknowledge quality even when you dislike the technology involved.

Totally agree with the way that llms and AI is currently. I would not want to see it in the classroom, especially with my children.