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.
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