Lots of people on Lemmy really dislike AI’s current implementations and use cases.

I’m trying to understand what people would want to be happening right now.

Destroy gen AI? Implement laws? Hoping all companies use it for altruistic purposes to help all of mankind?

Thanks for the discourse. Please keep it civil, but happy to be your punching bag.

  • Soleos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Well you didn’t respond to my questions and you’re vaguely referencing our other comments instead. It’s not effective communication and leads me to think you didn’t understand my comments. You seem to be into math, so I’ll put it this way,

    Be explicit, show your work: premises–>arguments–>conclusion

    • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Well I first replied to that first comment. Then people started making completely different claims and the point got lost in the sauce.

      Edit: why should I take the time to formulate my thoughts well if you have demonstrated that you don’t give even the slightest hint of good faith to understand what I’m saying?

      • Soleos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Ah, I haven’t looked at others’ responses. I can see how responding to many different people gets messy.

        But to answer your question, because I took the time to formulate my thoughts for you, and I responded directly to things you said in your comments. I also asked you directly “How so? What’s your alternative assertion.” Which was a good faith attempt to better understand what you meant.

        • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Well, I do consider this post, as a rephrasing of

          thinking through a chain of logic instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning

          not made in good faith. You don’t engage with the point I’m making at all. Instead, you pivot from understanding the logic to making sure the sources are trustworthy. Which is a fair standard for critical thought or whatever, but definitely not what the original contention of the first commenter was. Which was heavily upvoted (=a popular opinition?), and which originally I replied to.

          Also, hearing “How so? What’s your alternative assertion” after ten comments worth of people going out their way to misunderstand my point, presumably because they dislike AI, is not motivating.