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 āstraw manā colloquially that would make your usage correct.
Itāsā¦ itās 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. Iām not exactly writing Finnegans Wank here, but just in case you need them, the relevant definitions are below:
Colloquial /kÉ-lÅā²kwÄ-Él/
Adjective (comparative more colloquial, superlative most colloquial)
(linguistics) 1. Characteristic of familiar conversation, of common parlance; informal.
Railing /ĖɹeÉŖlÉŖÅ/
Adjective (comparative more railing, superlative most railing) Filled with invective and violent complaints
Rail /ɹeÉŖ(É)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 /stɹÉ//ĖmƦn/
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 thatās out of the way, lets address the rest of this!
First:
Your entire argument is posited on a strawman. Donāt believe me? Here:
But you also canāt just type, āHey Grok, make me a 30-minute video recreating the entire Cell Saga,ā and have a finished production magically appear. Thatās not how this works.
Now, I was willing to extend an assumption of hyperbolic exaggeration in order to illustrate your point - but apparently thatās a courtesy I shouldnāt take for granted. So in the spirit of illustrating my point, do you have any evidence that the literal idea āyou can type a single sentence into grok and get a full movie outā is at all a widespread misunderstanding of the technology?
ā¦ No? You were clearly being hyperbolic? Fancy that, who could have known (oh wait, me, I knew).
I explicitly stated that I knew it wasnāt 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 didnāt 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 ācolloquiallyā, your argument is ādefinitionallyā 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 canāt, I didnāt). You were the one that requested I demonstrate that was literally true, and now youāre trying to, what, claim that because I didnāt do that, I canāt defend my argument? I uhā¦ no. Thatās silly. You canāt just demand people do something unrelated and then dismiss what they actually said when they donāt 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 Iām simply reluctant to āadmit AI content is goodā - 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 thatās 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 donāt like AI, instead of an appreciation for nuance and creativity and that Iāve seen more inspired ideas on the walls of a kindergarten than in those channels youāre 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.
"Itās over anakin, Iāve already drawn you as the soyjak!"
Buddy just go back to reddit, youāll fit in way better with the community there if this is the level of BS youāre 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 āAI artistsā 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 anotherāspecifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didnāt 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 Iāve 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 doesnāt 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. Thatās perfectly reasonable. But there are objective categories of quality that you can acknowledge even when something isnāt to your personal taste, and you seem completely unwilling to concede that possibility when AI is involved.
And why on Godās 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 yourā¦ Jesus man. Way too much effort. I have to go up and open every spoiler tag just to respond to what youāre saying. Maybe just right in paragraphs so itās 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 anotherāspecifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didnāt 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 Iāve 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 Iāve put forward - possibly because you are projecting your own lack of familiarity with the term, more likely because I havenāt made one. Whoās to tell? (me, Iām the one who tells).
The channels I provided do not make AI slop.
Mmā¦hmm.
you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that AI can produce something worthwhile
Yup.
or be used to do something genuinely useful?
Donāt think I made that claim anywhereā¦
the quality of the conversation tends to degrade significantly.
There was no conversation before this happened, so it canāt have degraded vs. what came beforeā¦
At this point, I would almost venture to say that you would label anything a straw man if it doesnāt conform to whatever position you already hold.
āBehold, a (straw) man!ā
But there are objective categories of quality
Alright, yāknow what? Iām calling this one out. Put up or shut up time, budski; lets see a few of these āobjective measures of quality.ā Even stupidly simple measures like āItās not staticā āshapes are identifiable as distinct objectsā and ādid not induce vomitingā are all subjective soā¦ yeah, lets go. Come on. Chop chop. Example time.
And why on Godās green earth would I ever go back to Reddit when I have people like you to talk to here on Lemmy?
ā¦ 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) āclaiming that the other person doesnāt even understand their own argument so clearly how could they have a pointā? That just doesnāt fly here. You should know that by now. Youāve been trying that same tired shtick for at least days and it hasnāt 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 donāt know what a straw man is. Youāre still using it incorrectly.
You have confirmation bias the size of Nebraska. I donāt need to provide you with any proof because youāre not going to accept it anyway. Youāve literally indicated that twice at this point.
I will simply once again reiterate my point. Pipeline production of AI generated media isnāt 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. Thatās 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.
Nebraska? Who the fuck has a concept of the size of Nebraska? I havenāt thought about Nebraska in years. I might not have ever thought about Nebraska. Iām not even positive Nebraska is a state and not just one of the capital cities in some podunk flyover shithole nobody has ever given a fuck about. ThE sIzE oF nEbRaSka I mean seriously, come the fuck on with this shit.
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. Weāve been doing voices. Full disclosure, theyāre very funny. Darn this is a loss. That other comment you deleted barely had anything fun in it at all, too. Damn shame.
ā¦ Though, I suppose it does track that you still want credit for all the effort you put in but that resulted in no product.
Bottom line, you donāt know what a straw man is. Youāre still using it incorrectly.
Youāve 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? āTriedā?? Buddy I am the goddamn Harlem Globetrotters of dunking on your ass over this. Iāve succeeded at using this against you so hard Iām writing a book called "How I used it against them: The Strawman Story"
Sigh. Okay, Iāll be polite. Sorry, long day.
Look, insisting I donāt know what Iām talking about is a losing strategy. I know I know what Iām talking about, because I talk about stuff a lot and my momma says Iām real good at it, and my momma aināt no liar. And Iām well aware of the meanings behind the terms Iāve been using. Yes, what you did initially is absolutely a straw man - Iām 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).
Youāre 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 āIts A Strawmanā marching band strikes up their classic all-tuba rendition of āenter the gladiatorsā. It smells of hot buttered popcorn, freshly mown grass and the lingering scent of the straw bale youāre 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.
(Itās a callback to when I implied you banged a strawman earlier. Subtle, I know. God damn Iām funny.)
I donāt need to provide you with any proof because youāre not going to accept it anyway.
āGolly gee batman, thatās really convenient how they said could provide proof then said they didnāt have to! Man. You know, itās so convenient itās almost likeā¦ā
āGreat scott Boy Wonder, youāre right! The piddler never had any proof all along! It was all a bluff! Quickly, to the Flatmobile!ā
-muffled sounds of gorilla violence-
Anyways. Honestly, Iām still waiting on that example of a strawman I was using in an argument. Genuinely. Iām pretty sure I didnāt 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 Iām curious to hear your opinion there.
Also those Objective Categories of Quality, really want to hear more about those. Thatāll be fun.
Nebraska is 77,347 square milesāroughly 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 isnāt worth my time trying to decipher whatever it is you think youāre being clever about when you arenāt.
More importantly, I never said you made a straw man argument. Iām saying youāre demonstrating confirmation bias. Youāve 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, Iām just tired of arguing this point. You sound like an idiot parading around as an intellectual, and frankly, itās becoming kind of gross.
To be consistent, Iāll 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. Itās 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.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE BETWIXT, BETWEEN, BELOW AND BELOVED, BACK FOR A REPEAT ENCORE PERFORMANCE AND HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION āWHAT IS THE SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING BACKā, THE ONE, THE ONLY:
MECHOMAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
-muffled sounds of gorilla cheering-
Nebraska is 77,347 square miles
āMy word, what an incredibly vast size - and you say they fight dragons there? And the streets are paved with DDR5?? Oh it sounds a loverly place, this āNee-bra-skahā! How are more people not talking of these wonders???ā Seriously, how did you think this was going to go - I open this up, see you know Exactly How Big Nebraska Is and just faint dead at the realization Iāll never defeat you and your monstrously huge stack of 3rd grade US geography flash cards? For fucksā¦ youāre already trying to throw āConfirmation Biasā out there like a rhetorical pokemon, and now youāre following that up with the devastating one-two combination punch of āFascinating Nebraska Factsā??? Oh be still my cold-feeling legs, Mechoās really got us THIS TIME!
You might genuinely be the first person whoās ever cared enough about nebraska to look up how big it is - hell even nebraska doesnāt care about nebraska. But hereās some more nebraska facts you can use:
Their state bird is a hand turkey.
Their state flower is āKing Arthur All-Purposeā
Their state motto is āDefinitely more than 75,000 square miles of land!ā.
Their primary export is tourism brochures with titles like:
āNebraska! Weāre a state!ā
āNebraska: Come see our Quite Big Rock!ā
āExperience colonial life at the Nebraska Museum of Dysentery!ā
āIf you ever want to see your husband alive again, Visit Lovely Nebraska!ā
ā
Step it up dude, this is laaaaaaaaame.
There was so much superfluous nonsense in your comment that I only skimmed it.
Hmm. You know, performatively signaling your disinterest by implying my comment is so beneath you that you didnāt even read it was lame and transparent when all those other people did that to your first comment, and itās lame and transparent here too, and it will continue to be lame and transparent when you try it again. Nobody ever even means it - theyāll claim they did, but humans are just too curious to resist the tantalizing prospect of finding out whatās in the box!
But that said, the second half here:
Frankly, it isnāt worth my time trying to decipher whatever it is you think youāre being clever about when you arenāt.
No youāre dead on with this, it really isnāt worth worrying your pretty little head by trying to grasp the subtle nuances of my (checks notes) ā¦ elaborate dick jokes. Honestly, I had to stop writing to your level a while ago because I ate all my crayons. All that excess verbiage and imagery you want me to believe you didnāt read? All that purple prose? Overworking it to where thereās far more gilding than lily? Thatās to amuse myself (well, and the audience). Iāve gotta do something to keep myself from getting bored here since youāre clearly not up to the task. I mean, god, youāre trying to dunk on me with Nebraska facts. Nebraska. Facts. Son you donāt just ānot have gameā, your game has been stolen and youāre halfway through filing a police report about the group of raccoons that just beat you up and ran off with your limited edition Big Bang Theoryā¢ Monopoly set.
Nebraska.
Facts.
Cāmon son.
Anyways, because I know you donāt like too much writing, hereās a selection of quick little rapid-fire responses for you:
At this point, I would normally devolve into name-calling and being outright mean
You sound like an idiot parading around as an intellectual, and frankly, itās becoming kind of gross.
-mechoman444
Lmfao one sentence. One sentence. You couldnāt keep up the act until the next paragraph even. For nebraskaās sake man, what are you doing?
More importantly, I never said you made a straw man argument.
Iāll 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. Itās simply not funny anymore.
lmfao - we now go live to literally the second sentence I said to you:
Also, It is still beyond funny how you keep defining straw man and not understanding it
Look, thereās only two realistic options here. The first one is that youāre genuinely too dumb to be able to understand the wikipedia definition of straw man (just in case, hereās the simple english version) - and I think we can both agree that Iām right and youāre clearly not so painfully, stratospherically dumb as for that to be the case.
So that leaves us only with the second option (which is, lets be honest, pretty transparently the correct one):
Youāve long since realized I do know exactly what Iām talking about, but since defending your argument is out of reach, youāve shifted focus to trying to āwinā (by the internetās terms, ānot show any weakness or admit any fault, and have the other person give up firstā) the interaction. So now youāre repeating āOh lel, Uāre so wrong you donāt even know how wrong you are! I canāt behlieave ur sthil so wr0ngz0rs abt Strawmen kek, topkekā like an incantation. You know that when I do it to you it produces a strong emotional reaction, evoking impotent rage and a desperate need to avoid having to admit to yourself that youāve been outclassed, and youāre assuming that when you do it back, itāll have the same effect.
But likeā¦ youāre just not any good at this?
You act like youāre bringing heat to the kitchen, but you seem blissfully unaware that this is a blast furnace, and you didnāt remember to put on your asbestos underpants today. You can stand there with a skillet and talk about cooking the perfect crispy Narwhal Bacon, but everyone else can clearly see the skillet is melting, the bacon is charcoal and your pants have just caught on fire.
Look justā¦ for a moment, Iāll stop pretending weāre not on the same page here.
The simple fact is that Iām so far out of your league weāre not even playing the same sport. Your goal here is to performatively demonstrate how unaffected by what you think are attempts to compete with you - to show no weakness, know no fear, stand as his bulwark against the darkness, yadda yadda. You think that this must be frustrating me, and that by causing me frustration you can claim a victory. But dude, we donāt share the same goal! I donāt even know if I have a goal beyond "have fun and be yourself :) ". This isnāt about āwinningā for me - no, this is fun. I get excited when people reply like this. I get my partner to read these replies because they also think this is fun. I sincerely hope you never decide youāve lost, so you donāt stop coming back with this stuff. My trophy shelf is about to collapse under the weight of all the participation trophies alone, I just donāt see a need to add anything else to that precipitously teetering mountain of victories.
This isnāt a competition.
This isnāt some debate where I gnash my teeth while figuring out my next move in our grand dialectic chess match.
This is what I do to relax when a question at work is just too tedious-but-challenging and I need a break to do something fun. This is what I do in bed at night with my partner, reading out your comments to each other in silly voices before we go to sleep.
Youāre strutting around, acting like youāre some noble champion locked in a tremendously one-sided battle of wits with a plebeian challenger, blinded by ego to your undeniable might, when youāre somehow blissfully unaware that bitch, youāre my candy-crush.
Yeah Iām not wasting my time with whatever this chatgpt generated crap is.
You know Iāve actually never used this term before, but I think itās actually warranted in this particular caseā¦ 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 Iām above it all attitude. Yeah it really doesnāt work for you.
There is nothing more dangerous than a stupid person that thinks theyāre smart.
Hmm. You know, performatively signaling your disinterest by implying my comment is so beneath you that you didnāt even read it was lame and transparent when all those other people did that to your first comment, and itās lame and transparent here too, and it will continue to be lame and transparent when you try it again. Nobody ever even means it - theyāll claim they did, but humans are just too curious to resist the tantalizing prospect of finding out whatās in the box!
God damn are you bad at this.
Oh man also, so it wonāt generate a 30 minute completed work of media, but it will generate a 30 minute rant mocking you about nebraska? Lmao dude, youāre accusing someone in the same breath of baselessly rejecting AI because of their biases and using chatGPT to write their responses. But* (lol rude typo) youāre right though - if being this funny is as easy as typing a single sentence into ChatGPT, why are you so lame??
Look, I donāt know what else I can say to convince you that Iām not aloof or above anything (I mean, why do you think I wear so many goth boots? Hint, itās not just because theyāre cute as hell - those 6" platforms are the only way I can get to the top shelf!). I know youāre just saying that because itās a canned phrase and youāre about as creative as a very uncreative thing, but like come on, think before you speak. Youāre embarrassing yourself when you fall back on tired old tropes like that. Cut loose! Live a little! Honestly, Iām right down here in the mud, and Iām confused as hell why youāre not getting in here with me! Come on, youāre the head of the nebraska tourism board - youāre trying to tell me youāve never dabbled in a bit of mud wrestling??
Housekeeping:
Itāsā¦ itās 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. Iām not exactly writing Finnegans Wank here, but just in case you need them, the relevant definitions are below:
Phew, now that thatās out of the way, lets address the rest of this!
First:
Your entire argument is posited on a strawman. Donāt believe me? Here:
Now, I was willing to extend an assumption of hyperbolic exaggeration in order to illustrate your point - but apparently thatās a courtesy I shouldnāt take for granted. So in the spirit of illustrating my point, do you have any evidence that the literal idea āyou can type a single sentence into grok and get a full movie outā is at all a widespread misunderstanding of the technology?
ā¦ No? You were clearly being hyperbolic? Fancy that, who could have known (oh wait, me, I knew).
I explicitly stated that I knew it wasnāt 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 didnāt 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 ācolloquiallyā, your argument is ādefinitionallyā 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 canāt, I didnāt). You were the one that requested I demonstrate that was literally true, and now youāre trying to, what, claim that because I didnāt do that, I canāt defend my argument? I uhā¦ no. Thatās silly. You canāt just demand people do something unrelated and then dismiss what they actually said when they donāt 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 Iām simply reluctant to āadmit AI content is goodā - 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 donāt like AI, instead of an appreciation for nuance and creativity and that Iāve seen more inspired ideas on the walls of a kindergarten than in those channels youāre so eager to hold up.
Yeah, sure, how magnanimous of you. Great point.
Fifth:
"Itās over anakin, Iāve already drawn you as the soyjak!"
Buddy just go back to reddit, youāll fit in way better with the community there if this is the level of BS youāre 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 āAI artistsā 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 anotherāspecifically, one that would be easier to attack or defend. In fact, I didnāt 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 Iāve 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 doesnāt 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. Thatās perfectly reasonable. But there are objective categories of quality that you can acknowledge even when something isnāt to your personal taste, and you seem completely unwilling to concede that possibility when AI is involved.
And why on Godās 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 yourā¦ Jesus man. Way too much effort. I have to go up and open every spoiler tag just to respond to what youāre saying. Maybe just right in paragraphs so itās 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 Iāve been referencing.
What a suspiciously convenient and yet thus far unfounded assertion. Strangely, you have yet to hilight a strawman Iāve put forward - possibly because you are projecting your own lack of familiarity with the term, more likely because I havenāt made one. Whoās to tell? (me, Iām the one who tells).
Mmā¦hmm.
Yup.
Donāt think I made that claim anywhereā¦
There was no conversation before this happened, so it canāt have degraded vs. what came beforeā¦
āBehold, a (straw) man!ā
Alright, yāknow what? Iām calling this one out. Put up or shut up time, budski; lets see a few of these āobjective measures of quality.ā Even stupidly simple measures like āItās not staticā āshapes are identifiable as distinct objectsā and ādid not induce vomitingā are all subjective soā¦ yeah, lets go. Come on. Chop chop. Example time.
ā¦ 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) āclaiming that the other person doesnāt even understand their own argument so clearly how could they have a pointā? That just doesnāt fly here. You should know that by now. Youāve been trying that same tired shtick for at least days and it hasnāt once worked. Honestly, has it ever worked for you on lemmy?
deleted by creator
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 donāt know what a straw man is. Youāre still using it incorrectly.
You have confirmation bias the size of Nebraska. I donāt need to provide you with any proof because youāre not going to accept it anyway. Youāve literally indicated that twice at this point.
I will simply once again reiterate my point. Pipeline production of AI generated media isnāt 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. Thatās 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.
Nebraska: a rant.
Nebraska? Who the fuck has a concept of the size of Nebraska? I havenāt thought about Nebraska in years. I might not have ever thought about Nebraska. Iām not even positive Nebraska is a state and not just one of the capital cities in some podunk flyover shithole nobody has ever given a fuck about. ThE sIzE oF nEbRaSka I mean seriously, come the fuck on with this shit.
I am genuinely saddened to learn this, this has been a rollicking good time. Weāve been doing voices. Full disclosure, theyāre very funny. Darn this is a loss. That other comment you deleted barely had anything fun in it at all, too. Damn shame.
ā¦ Though, I suppose it does track that you still want credit for all the effort you put in but that resulted in no product.
Tried to use it against you? āTriedā?? Buddy I am the goddamn Harlem Globetrotters of dunking on your ass over this. Iāve succeeded at using this against you so hard Iām writing a book called "How I used it against them: The Strawman Story"Sigh. Okay, Iāll be polite. Sorry, long day.
Look, insisting I donāt know what Iām talking about is a losing strategy. I know I know what Iām talking about, because I talk about stuff a lot and my momma says Iām real good at it, and my momma aināt no liar. And Iām well aware of the meanings behind the terms Iāve been using. Yes, what you did initially is absolutely a straw man - Iām going to just borrow the damn formula from wikipedia and fill in the blanks mad-libs style:
Youāre 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 āIts A Strawmanā marching band strikes up their classic all-tuba rendition of āenter the gladiatorsā. It smells of hot buttered popcorn, freshly mown grass and the lingering scent of the straw bale youāre 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.
(Itās a callback to when I implied you banged a strawman earlier. Subtle, I know. God damn Iām funny.)
āGolly gee batman, thatās really convenient how they said could provide proof then said they didnāt have to! Man. You know, itās so convenient itās almost likeā¦ā
āGreat scott Boy Wonder, youāre right! The piddler never had any proof all along! It was all a bluff! Quickly, to the Flatmobile!ā
-muffled sounds of gorilla violence-
Anyways. Honestly, Iām still waiting on that example of a strawman I was using in an argument. Genuinely. Iām pretty sure I didnāt 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 Iām curious to hear your opinion there.
Also those Objective Categories of Quality, really want to hear more about those. Thatāll be fun.
Nebraska is 77,347 square milesāroughly 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 isnāt worth my time trying to decipher whatever it is you think youāre being clever about when you arenāt.
More importantly, I never said you made a straw man argument. Iām saying youāre demonstrating confirmation bias. Youāve 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, Iām just tired of arguing this point. You sound like an idiot parading around as an intellectual, and frankly, itās becoming kind of gross.
To be consistent, Iāll 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. Itās 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.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE BETWIXT, BETWEEN, BELOW AND BELOVED, BACK FOR A REPEAT ENCORE PERFORMANCE AND HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION āWHAT IS THE SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING BACKā, THE ONE, THE ONLY:
MECHOMAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
-muffled sounds of gorilla cheering-
āMy word, what an incredibly vast size - and you say they fight dragons there? And the streets are paved with DDR5?? Oh it sounds a loverly place, this āNee-bra-skahā! How are more people not talking of these wonders???ā Seriously, how did you think this was going to go - I open this up, see you know Exactly How Big Nebraska Is and just faint dead at the realization Iāll never defeat you and your monstrously huge stack of 3rd grade US geography flash cards? For fucksā¦ youāre already trying to throw āConfirmation Biasā out there like a rhetorical pokemon, and now youāre following that up with the devastating one-two combination punch of āFascinating Nebraska Factsā??? Oh be still my cold-feeling legs, Mechoās really got us THIS TIME!
You might genuinely be the first person whoās ever cared enough about nebraska to look up how big it is - hell even nebraska doesnāt care about nebraska. But hereās some more nebraska facts you can use:
ā
Step it up dude, this is laaaaaaaaame.
Hmm. You know, performatively signaling your disinterest by implying my comment is so beneath you that you didnāt even read it was lame and transparent when all those other people did that to your first comment, and itās lame and transparent here too, and it will continue to be lame and transparent when you try it again. Nobody ever even means it - theyāll claim they did, but humans are just too curious to resist the tantalizing prospect of finding out whatās in the box!
But that said, the second half here:
No youāre dead on with this, it really isnāt worth worrying your pretty little head by trying to grasp the subtle nuances of my (checks notes) ā¦ elaborate dick jokes. Honestly, I had to stop writing to your level a while ago because I ate all my crayons. All that excess verbiage and imagery you want me to believe you didnāt read? All that purple prose? Overworking it to where thereās far more gilding than lily? Thatās to amuse myself (well, and the audience). Iāve gotta do something to keep myself from getting bored here since youāre clearly not up to the task. I mean, god, youāre trying to dunk on me with Nebraska facts. Nebraska. Facts. Son you donāt just ānot have gameā, your game has been stolen and youāre halfway through filing a police report about the group of raccoons that just beat you up and ran off with your limited edition Big Bang Theoryā¢ Monopoly set.
Nebraska.
Facts.
Cāmon son.
Anyways, because I know you donāt like too much writing, hereās a selection of quick little rapid-fire responses for you:
-mechoman444
Lmfao one sentence. One sentence. You couldnāt keep up the act until the next paragraph even. For nebraskaās sake man, what are you doing?
Umā¦
-muffled sounds of gorilla dunking-
Uhā¦
lmfao - we now go live to literally the second sentence I said to you:
Look, thereās only two realistic options here. The first one is that youāre genuinely too dumb to be able to understand the wikipedia definition of straw man (just in case, hereās the simple english version) - and I think we can both agree that Iām right and youāre clearly not so painfully, stratospherically dumb as for that to be the case.
So that leaves us only with the second option (which is, lets be honest, pretty transparently the correct one):
Youāve long since realized I do know exactly what Iām talking about, but since defending your argument is out of reach, youāve shifted focus to trying to āwinā (by the internetās terms, ānot show any weakness or admit any fault, and have the other person give up firstā) the interaction. So now youāre repeating āOh lel, Uāre so wrong you donāt even know how wrong you are! I canāt behlieave ur sthil so wr0ngz0rs abt Strawmen kek, topkekā like an incantation. You know that when I do it to you it produces a strong emotional reaction, evoking impotent rage and a desperate need to avoid having to admit to yourself that youāve been outclassed, and youāre assuming that when you do it back, itāll have the same effect.
But likeā¦ youāre just not any good at this?
You act like youāre bringing heat to the kitchen, but you seem blissfully unaware that this is a blast furnace, and you didnāt remember to put on your asbestos underpants today. You can stand there with a skillet and talk about cooking the perfect crispy Narwhal Bacon, but everyone else can clearly see the skillet is melting, the bacon is charcoal and your pants have just caught on fire.
Look justā¦ for a moment, Iāll stop pretending weāre not on the same page here.
The simple fact is that Iām so far out of your league weāre not even playing the same sport. Your goal here is to performatively demonstrate how unaffected by what you think are attempts to compete with you - to show no weakness, know no fear, stand as his bulwark against the darkness, yadda yadda. You think that this must be frustrating me, and that by causing me frustration you can claim a victory. But dude, we donāt share the same goal! I donāt even know if I have a goal beyond "have fun and be yourself :) ". This isnāt about āwinningā for me - no, this is fun. I get excited when people reply like this. I get my partner to read these replies because they also think this is fun. I sincerely hope you never decide youāve lost, so you donāt stop coming back with this stuff. My trophy shelf is about to collapse under the weight of all the participation trophies alone, I just donāt see a need to add anything else to that precipitously teetering mountain of victories.
This isnāt a competition.
This isnāt some debate where I gnash my teeth while figuring out my next move in our grand dialectic chess match.
This is what I do to relax when a question at work is just too tedious-but-challenging and I need a break to do something fun. This is what I do in bed at night with my partner, reading out your comments to each other in silly voices before we go to sleep.
Youāre strutting around, acting like youāre some noble champion locked in a tremendously one-sided battle of wits with a plebeian challenger, blinded by ego to your undeniable might, when youāre somehow blissfully unaware that bitch, youāre my candy-crush.
Yeah Iām not wasting my time with whatever this chatgpt generated crap is.
You know Iāve actually never used this term before, but I think itās actually warranted in this particular caseā¦ 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 Iām above it all attitude. Yeah it really doesnāt work for you.
There is nothing more dangerous than a stupid person that thinks theyāre smart.
AAAAHHahahahahaa, CALLED IT!
God damn are you bad at this.
Oh man also, so it wonāt generate a 30 minute completed work of media, but it will generate a 30 minute rant mocking you about nebraska? Lmao dude, youāre accusing someone in the same breath of baselessly rejecting AI because of their biases and using chatGPT to write their responses. But* (lol rude typo) youāre right though - if being this funny is as easy as typing a single sentence into ChatGPT, why are you so lame??
Look, I donāt know what else I can say to convince you that Iām not aloof or above anything (I mean, why do you think I wear so many goth boots? Hint, itās not just because theyāre cute as hell - those 6" platforms are the only way I can get to the top shelf!). I know youāre just saying that because itās a canned phrase and youāre about as creative as a very uncreative thing, but like come on, think before you speak. Youāre embarrassing yourself when you fall back on tired old tropes like that. Cut loose! Live a little! Honestly, Iām right down here in the mud, and Iām confused as hell why youāre not getting in here with me! Come on, youāre the head of the nebraska tourism board - youāre trying to tell me youāve never dabbled in a bit of mud wrestling??