Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Elaborate, or refrain from comments that are nothing more than "Nuh uh!"
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
You're obviously arguing in bad faith
Fuck right off
People need to chill the fuck out, is what they need to do.
You've been warned repeatedly, though the last time was over a year ago. So I'm only giving you a two-day ban. But control your temper.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Since I got tagged in here:
I have no real opinion on your post that set this off, and believe you that you didn't use AI to write it.
I do think your style has gotten worse since you became such an AI enthusiast, mostly in that it is more wordy and "tryhard." I do strongly suspect it's the LLM influence, which you think is a good thing because they "write well," but the thing is, mostly they don't. They write very fluently. They can fill space with words, words that sometimes sound lyrical or profound, but... it's empty.
It's hard to describe without going into a much longer post about writing style, but it's very similar to the debate over AI art. I am not an AI art hater, I think occasionally it can produce really cool stuff, but mostly it's good for outputting placeholder art that gets the job done... you know, D&D characters or "I have a picture in my head that would be cool to see rendered but I don't want to pay someone to draw it" or bland corporate stuff. Notwithstanding Scott's AI Art Turing test, most AI art is very, very recognizeable as AI. You know the look: a little too polished, a little too saturated, a little too uniform in tone and shade and crosshatching (even when prompter tries to make it draw in different styles), an emptiness in the eyes... the illustration might be perfect in form, we don't see six-fingered hands or necklaces that meld with shoulders as much anymore, but it's still full of tiny details and stylistic choices that a human artist wouldn't make. And it's all very samey, like imagine every single artist in the world graduating from CalArts and trying as hard as possible to replicate the CalArts style.
AI writing is the same!
It's not just the tells (em-dashes, "It's not X, it's Y"), which like six-fingered hands and necklaces melding into shoulders, LLMs are starting to be trained not to do so predictably. It's the sameness, the pseudo-profound verbosity, the fluency that mistakes many pretty-sounding-words chained together in grammatically correct sentences as saying something prettily.
You are starting to write like a guy who reads LLM output and thinks "Yeah, that's good writing!" As if all those CalArts students were starting to take their art classes from ChatGPT and imitating LLM style instead.
Maybe in the future, maybe even in the near future, AI will improve enough to make this moot. We don't have LLMs that can write entire novels in one shot yet, and even with lots of prompting, the novels they can write are absolute crap. But I have no doubt people will read them, just like people read progressive fantasies and litrpgs that are absolute crap in terms of writing style (* cough * Reverend Insanity * cough * ) There is no accounting for taste, and some people don't actually care about style and craft and skill beyond basic get-the-job-doneness. "Give me words that tell a story, and make the story interesting. Give me pixels that form big round boobies and a waifu fuck-me face."
That's... fine, I guess? But don't mistake it for good.
I think that fact that you are defensive about this is kind of weird. Like you are insecure either about your own writing, or about the potential of LLMs, or about the intersection of those two things.
There's a writer on Medium I kind of casually follow for his trainwreck-of-a-life stories, and he gets dragged regularly for writing posts that scream "ChatGPT." He has admitted he uses AI for research, outlining, sometimes phrasing, but "he writes it all himself" and after another post that got a bunch of people calling him an LLM, he wrote a long, huffy, defensive post about how this is his writing style, this is how he's always written, ChatGPT is copying him, not the other way around, and fuck the haters. And, well, I guess I believe him if he says he's not actually letting ChatGPT write his posts for him (I don't, really, I think he's letting ChatGPT "outline" his posts and then he does some editing and tweaking and calls it "his writing"). But the degree of his defensiveness really convinced me he knows he's using too much AI in his writing.
Note that I am not saying you're doing the same thing, just... I think you know you're outsourcing too much to AI, and now you're getting pissy when people point it out.
On that note:
-
AI detectors are themselves not that reliable, since the ability to detect AI writing is a moving target, so posting "An AI detector said my writing is 100% human" is probably not that convincing to most people. (Just as many people have had the displeasure of seeing something they know they wrote themselves tagged as "almost certainly AI" by an AI detector.)
-
I do not think we should be using mod logs to tell people "You are a crap poster so I dismiss your argument."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
There are other options besides automatically prosecuting any officer who shoots someone on the assumption that a trial will sort it out. Granted, I doubt ICE's ability to conduct professional internal investigations, but in theory, that is how a professional police force would handle it.
But only one of those sides is making a habit of claiming immunity
Good's side is definitely claiming protesters should be immune from consequences (to include being arrested or forcibly removed from the area, I don't mean they deserve to be shot), and had Good in fact injured or killed the officer and not been shot herself, I am confident you'd see a lot of anti-ICE people saying she should face zero consequences.
No one is really (openly) claiming that the person who killed Charlie Kirk should face zero consequences, because "You should literally be able to murder someone in public and not be charged" is actually insane. (In Good's case, whether it was "murder" is in dispute, in Kirk's case, no one disputes it was murder.) But people were certainly celebrating it, piling on anyone who expressed such tepid sentiments as "Hey, celebrating a husband and father's murder is bad mmkay?", and would almost certainly fist-pump an acquittal for his killer.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
You know what you haven't done? Present any evidence that the poster you responded to here made a claim incompatible with the available evidence.
I do not think the poster I responded to here made a claim incompatible with the available evidence.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Regardless of whether it's in the rules or not, what do you think you're even arguing here?
What do you think I'm arguing here?
That's an honest question, because you seem to be accusing me of "pounding the table" for a particular argument, when I have not taken a side on Reed at all, other than gesturing at what I consider to be a number of possibilities, which I explicitly stated were not equally probable.
I infer from your post that you have slotted me into the "anti-ICE, pro-Reed" side, and are seeing everything I post through that lens. Which is what most people do, because if you don't immediately and vigorously sneer and cheer for the right side you're clearly carrying water for the other. This is inane and mindkilling, but here is where even the Motte is now.
If you really wanted to know what I think specifically about any given proposition, you could ask. But people don't do that, they just assume.
My argument is that most of the people on both sides are guilty of motivated reasoning and would change positions if the tribes were reversed, if Reed had been MAGA and Ashli Babbit had been woke. You shouldn't be confused about this, because that's what I said in plain English. But instead you seem to be trying to dig for my unstated tribal priors. You think you know what they are, and you don't.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Yes, so, people may indeed be backing their tribe and justifying actions on that basis. But no one literally believes it's legal to run over a cop. Snarky "hth" "explainers" are a very bad way to engage with someone you think is making a bad argument. Is this what you really want threads to look like here?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
So, just to be clear, your mental model of the OP is that he literally believes it's legal to run over police officers?
Even in the unlikely event one believes this, we still wish people to engage without unnecessary sarcasm and condescension.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Do you think he's actually confused about the legality of hitting police officers with your car?
Are you genuinely trying to be helpful? Because you think he genuinely needed that to be explained to him?
No, you are not. You're being sarcastic in a condescending manner, which feels good and snarky and takes much less effort than actually rebutting an argument.
I would in fact wager you didn't even read the entire post. At most you skimmed it while composing your cutting response in your head.
People often have radically different takes, so radically different that they think "I cannot believe you actually think that, you are obviously lying." Or someone will say "So it's better to ?" and the indignant response is "I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU LIAR!"
None of this improves the discussion. In fact, it basically ends it. When you're calling each other liars, you're pretty much at the endpoint of the discussion. This is why I almost always mod people for calling someone else a liar. You are not a mindreader. People do usually actually believe the things they are saying. They may be ill-informed. They may be guilty of spurious reasoning. They may be arguing sloppily. And yeah, sometimes they might just be making up shit to win an argument. Not that I am saying any of that is specifically true here, but what I am saying is you'd better be on point when you call someone a liar.
I am not sure why this is the biggest scissor of the year (well, so far) but people need to chill the fuck out.
More options
Context Copy link