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.
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.
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.
It’s… it’s a double entendre. I was implying you are both arguing against a figurative strawman (which you are) and fucking a literal man made from straw. I’m not exactly writing Finnegans Wank here, but just in case you need them, the relevant definitions are below:
Colloquial /kə-lō′kwē-əl/
Adjective (comparative more colloquial, superlative most colloquial)
(linguistics) 1. Characteristic of familiar conversation, of common parlance; informal.
Railing /ˈɹeɪlɪŋ/
Adjective (comparative more railing, superlative most railing) Filled with invective and violent complaints
Rail /ɹeɪ(ə)l/
Verb (third-person singular simple present rails, present participle railing, simple past and past participle railed)
(transitive, vulgar, slang) To sexually penetrate in a rough manner.
Straw man /stɹɔ//ˈmæn/
Noun (sing. straw man, plural straw men) A doll or scarecrow, particularly one stuffed with straw.
Straw man
Figurative The straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Phew, now that that’s out of the way, lets address the rest of this!
First:
Your entire argument is posited on a strawman. Don’t believe me? Here:
But you also can’t just type, “Hey Grok, make me a 30-minute video recreating the entire Cell Saga,” and have a finished production magically appear. That’s not how this works.
Now, I was willing to extend an assumption of hyperbolic exaggeration in order to illustrate your point - but apparently that’s a courtesy I shouldn’t take for granted. So in the spirit of illustrating my point, do you have any evidence that the literal idea ‘you can type a single sentence into grok and get a full movie out’ is at all a widespread misunderstanding of the technology?
… No? You were clearly being hyperbolic? Fancy that, who could have known (oh wait, me, I knew).
I explicitly stated that I knew it wasn’t a literal example but that you were attempting to highlight a concept, then clarified that the conceptual argument you were presenting as being representative of the attitudes of the anti-AI crowd didn’t reflect the actual attitudes of the group. That was why I said you were arguing with a strawman - your justification for why the joke is tired is not why people object to AI, nor is it a widespread misunderstanding that AI workflows still involve human effort (feel free to try and prove it is, though!). We can bin “colloquially”, your argument is “definitionally” a strawman.
Second:
Please show on the mysteriously sticky straw-stuffed doll where I said that there were literally people demanding respect for their 3 minute slopfests (spoiler you can’t, I didn’t). You were the one that requested I demonstrate that was literally true, and now you’re trying to, what, claim that because I didn’t do that, I can’t defend my argument? I uh… no. That’s silly. You can’t just demand people do something unrelated and then dismiss what they actually said when they don’t do that.
Third:
Actually, hang on, what strawman do you think I made? My argument has been consistent throughout this. Are you just trying to gaslight in a strawman? That seems like a bad idea - straw is flammable! We could all die!
Honestly it seems like you are, because I have no earthly idea where you got the idea that I’m simply reluctant to “admit AI content is good” - no, I have seen no good outright AI content. As a tool it can be situationally useful, as the primary creative tool it is hilariously garbage.
Fourth:
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.
So! It is okay for our subjective tastes to differ, But! I must be basing my subjective opinion (that those channels you linked are the definition of ugly, vapid, no-effort slipitty slop) on the fact I just don’t like AI, instead of an appreciation for nuance and creativity and that I’ve seen more inspired ideas on the walls of a kindergarten than in those channels you’re so eager to hold up.
Yeah, sure, how magnanimous of you. Great point.
Fifth:
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’s over anakin, I’ve already drawn you as the soyjak!"
Buddy just go back to reddit, you’ll fit in way better with the community there if this is the level of BS you’re trying to pass off.
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.
Ohhh fine, if you want a quote-heavy wall of text, you can have one. As a treat.
But first a tiny aside (just one to save screen space for anyone scrolling the thread):
Boop!
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?
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.
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. Ah, darn.
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 andPflrrt!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!”
-sound of car zooming flatly-
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.
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.
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.
Housekeeping:
It’s… it’s a double entendre. I was implying you are both arguing against a figurative strawman (which you are) and fucking a literal man made from straw. I’m not exactly writing Finnegans Wank here, but just in case you need them, the relevant definitions are below:
Phew, now that that’s out of the way, lets address the rest of this!
First:
Your entire argument is posited on a strawman. Don’t believe me? Here:
Now, I was willing to extend an assumption of hyperbolic exaggeration in order to illustrate your point - but apparently that’s a courtesy I shouldn’t take for granted. So in the spirit of illustrating my point, do you have any evidence that the literal idea ‘you can type a single sentence into grok and get a full movie out’ is at all a widespread misunderstanding of the technology?
… No? You were clearly being hyperbolic? Fancy that, who could have known (oh wait, me, I knew).
I explicitly stated that I knew it wasn’t a literal example but that you were attempting to highlight a concept, then clarified that the conceptual argument you were presenting as being representative of the attitudes of the anti-AI crowd didn’t reflect the actual attitudes of the group. That was why I said you were arguing with a strawman - your justification for why the joke is tired is not why people object to AI, nor is it a widespread misunderstanding that AI workflows still involve human effort (feel free to try and prove it is, though!). We can bin “colloquially”, your argument is “definitionally” a strawman.
Second:
Please show on the mysteriously sticky straw-stuffed doll where I said that there were literally people demanding respect for their 3 minute slopfests (spoiler you can’t, I didn’t). You were the one that requested I demonstrate that was literally true, and now you’re trying to, what, claim that because I didn’t do that, I can’t defend my argument? I uh… no. That’s silly. You can’t just demand people do something unrelated and then dismiss what they actually said when they don’t do that.
Third:
Actually, hang on, what strawman do you think I made? My argument has been consistent throughout this. Are you just trying to gaslight in a strawman? That seems like a bad idea - straw is flammable! We could all die!
Honestly it seems like you are, because I have no earthly idea where you got the idea that I’m simply reluctant to “admit AI content is good” - no, I have seen no good outright AI content. As a tool it can be situationally useful, as the primary creative tool it is hilariously garbage.
Fourth:
So! It is okay for our subjective tastes to differ, But! I must be basing my subjective opinion (that those channels you linked are the definition of ugly, vapid, no-effort slipitty slop) on the fact I just don’t like AI, instead of an appreciation for nuance and creativity and that I’ve seen more inspired ideas on the walls of a kindergarten than in those channels you’re so eager to hold up.
Yeah, sure, how magnanimous of you. Great point.
Fifth:
"It’s over anakin, I’ve already drawn you as the soyjak!"
Buddy just go back to reddit, you’ll fit in way better with the community there if this is the level of BS you’re trying to pass off.
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.
Ohhh fine, if you want a quote-heavy wall of text, you can have one. As a treat.
But first a tiny aside (just one to save screen space for anyone scrolling the thread):
Boop!
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.
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).
Mm…hmm.
Yup.
Don’t think I made that claim anywhere…
There was no conversation before this happened, so it can’t have degraded vs. what came before…
“Behold, a (straw) man!”
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.
… 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?
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.
I am genuinely saddened to learn this, this has been a rollicking good time. Ah, darn.
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:
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.)
“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!”
-sound of car zooming flatly-
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.
deleted by creator