mechoman444

Lol refund. I just use the batch file to activate Windows 11.

What? That’s not even remotely how that works.

A human being is also shaped by the information they’ve encountered throughout their life. You’ve encountered racism, stupidity, misinformation, and countless other forms of bad information. That doesn’t mean you automatically become racist, stupid, or incapable of distinguishing good information from bad information.

AI works similarly in the sense that its training data contains an enormous amount of contradictory, inaccurate, biased, and outright terrible information. The mere presence of that information in the training data does not logically imply that the resulting model possesses those characteristics.

And AI isn’t “dumb” or “smart” in the way you’re describing. Those are human cognitive attributes. The relevant question is what a model can actually do, what patterns it has learned, and how reliably it performs a given task.

You don’t like AI. Fine. But you clearly don’t understand how it works, and this is an unfortunately constant problem on this platform. People make an assumption about AI, then present that assumption as though they’ve discovered some fundamental truth about the technology.

Misinformation is misinformation. It doesn’t become correct because you think the conclusion is morally justified. You didn’t figure out anything about AI here. You made an assumption and called it true.

All, I’m saying if you’re going to critique something, at least know what you’re critiquing or criticizing.

Also before anybody makes any more assumptions, what happen here is absolutely mind-blowingly horrific. Using csam to train anything is just terrible and exploitive. I’m very sorry for doe for having to continuously go through this.

Also also the people responsible for this should be charged with possession of CSAM and prosecuted in a court of law.

Disclaimer: Disagreeing with someone’s argument, pointing out flaws in their reasoning, or interpreting their position differently does not automatically make it a straw man. For example, if I say, “I think we should reduce military spending,” and you respond, “You think we should completely eliminate the military,” you have created a straw man. You are arguing against a position I never actually took.

For the people not using Linux in the comment section, you can’t skip a Windows update. It’s going to happen no matter what.

I mean I guess you can adjust the registry or whatever but 90% of Windows users aren’t going to do any of that.

I could have done it and I didn’t. I updated and now my cursor is all fucked up.

Oh, please stop with the holier-than-thou nonsense.

Once again, that is not a straw man.

A straw man is when I replace your argument with something else.

So, if the argument is: “You cannot generate a completed 30-minute video with a simple prompt,” and you respond with, “Oh, so you think you just push a button and make a video?” that is a straw man. You have replaced my actual argument with an argument I never made.

I didn’t make a straw man at any point. My argument has consistently been directed at what you actually said. I am so tired of every conversation devolving into me having to define what a straw man is.

If you are unable to at least understand that and admit that you are wrong about your interpretation of what a straw man is, then how can I take anything else you say about AI seriously?

And don’t misconstrue that as an ad hominem. I’m not dismissing your arguments about AI simply because I think you’re incapable of understanding them. I’m pointing out that this conversation has now devolved into me having to explain what a straw man is because you are repeatedly misidentifying one. If you cannot accurately identify the basic logical concept we’re currently arguing about, then I have legitimate reason to question whether you are accurately understanding the arguments you’re making about AI.

Midjourney? I’ve never even heard of this before. What?

I’m going to respond to your previous comment here to avoid multiple comments addressing the same thing.

The reason you think that is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs function and what the different types of “AI” actually are. You hate a caricature of what the technology is. You don’t know how it functions, you don’t know what it does, and you seem to think it makes silly memes from a short prompt while people are hooting and hollering about how great of artists they are.

You couldn’t even ascertain the satirical nature of the subreddit that you sent me, which is absolutely amazing.

What you call “AI” is a tool, and it has a use function whether you like it or not. That is a true statement. If you are not able to admit that, then you’ve developed confirmation bias and prejudice against a technology, indicating your ignorance of it. In the very same sense that racism is based on ignorance and misinformation. Yes, I just compared your reluctance toward AI to racism. Extreme, but applicable.

Also, you are the second person to say that I have somehow used a straw man when, in fact, I did not. I am making a claim and then supporting that claim with evidence directly below my example.

So, to reiterate, I am saying that you cannot make a completed 30-minute piece of media with a simple AI prompt. That’s not how the technology functions at higher levels. I then backed up that statement with the fact that there is a pipeline of applications, other programs, and other skills used to manipulate media generated by AI into a coherent 30-minute video.

For some reason, everyone ignores everything below my original statement and calls it a straw man. Once again, this supports the fact that most people don’t know what a straw man is, how it is used, how to identify one, and why it is probably the single most misused logical fallacy on the internet.

I sincerely hope that, in the course of this conversation, you will not devolve into random sarcasm and snide remarks about how smart you are, like the last person who claimed I made a straw man.

Here’s a good one. Because I know you’re not going to look.

Wow! Thanks man! That’s actually a good sub, I just skimmed through it. Not a lot of good subs on Reddit anymore.

It is ironic that you would link me that sub. I’m assuming that you didn’t go through any of it. I recommend that you do. You’ll never admit it, but you’re going to think yourself a fool.

I’ll ask you what I asked. Everybody else provide proof that this is occurring in large numbers.

My dad’s dead.

Anyway. I think I’m done wasting your time. Good day. Good luck with… Whatever it is that you do.

You’re kinda dumb and full of yourself but I honestly do wish you the best.

🫡

SEE!!!

Didn’t read this one either.

But please do go on.

Wait no I just skimmed it. Are you calling me performative? 😂

Yeah I’m not wasting my time with whatever this chatgpt generated crap is.

You know I’ve actually never used this term before, but I think it’s actually warranted in this particular case… But ummm: touch grass.

And as part of the usual to bring everything back to the topic at hand: writing a prompt into a llm will not generate a 30-minute completed work of media. And the joke has run its course making it no longer funny which is the entire premise of this entire conversation which has never actually been addressed. Aside from erroneously calling it a straw man.

Also the whole confident aloof I’m above it all attitude. Yeah it really doesn’t work for you.

There is nothing more dangerous than a stupid person that thinks they’re smart.

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.

deleted by creator

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.