Why didn’t you remark on my own usage? You’re speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others. Your personal experience is not more valid than others. Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?
Edit.
Upon re-reading your reply, I have to ask a simple question. What would need to be demonstrated in order to change your mind? If you can think of an honest criteria, we can keep talking about it. If your first response is to say “There is literally nothing that can change my mind.” Then this is not a discussion, it is simply you expressing anger and indignation.
And I’m sorry to say, but if you’re engaging in conversation without a single iota of willingness to see the other sides perspective or reasoning, then you’re a bad conversation partner and are consciously choosing to be arrogant, even if your side is the “Correct” side.
Have I come across as rude or dismissive that you felt the need to mock and belittle me? I tried to form my response respectfully while pointing out possible areas of bias.
You’re speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others
I am not ignoring anything, I just literally cannot speak to your experience. I can only speak to mine.
Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?
They’ve been grifted, yes. I know they have because I’ve had these conversations over and over again. They come to me with some sort of untrue statement. I ask them where they got it. They say Google. I ask them if it’s the AI Overview and they say yes. I ask them where the AI got that information. They have no idea. I use a real search engine, find an authoritative source that directly and clearly refutes their statement, and they’re confused as to how I got it. They are completely ignorant to the fact that it’s constantly wrong and that it’s use is literally making them dumber, not only because the answer is wrong, but because they’re not actually exercising their brain to find it.
You should speak to others experiences because you are making the universal statement that is has literally no uses, contrary to many people stating they have, in fact, found uses for it.
So either every single person that believes they have found a novel use for it is wrong. Or you have universally decided that none of their experiences are valid in forming your opinion.
Considering I have found a use for it, that does not require it to write code, paint pictures, or tell me I’m right about everything, why is my usage invalid in nullifying your statement that “GenAI does not have any uses.”
There is no ambiguity in that statement, and yet I have found use for it.
My brother in Christ, what did I just say? I literally cannot. I don’t know anything about your experiences. They’re your experiences. And I just finished explaining exactly how people’s experiences are invalid because they don’t understand what’s happening. What do you want?
You’re contradicting yourself and not seeing it. You’re universally saying it has absolutely no uses, and using your own experiences and others, as evidence. When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.
Either other peoples experiences are valid, and you must accept that some people have found genuine uses for the technology, despite your hatred for the industry and the false marketing around it.
Or other peoples experiences are not valid, in which case there’s no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.
When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.
Your experience is not evidence. It’s an anecdote.
in which case there’s no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.
In a world where everyone and their fucking mother has been trying relentlessly to gaslight me into believing this for 3 fucking years, despite any and all available evidence, yes, I absolutely will not. I’m long past done entertaining the notion.
Actually, that’s materially incorrect. You are making the universal claim that a technology has literally no uses, and every single person that claims otherwise is either ignorant, or has been grifted.
I am making the counter-argument that, while I agree with the overall concerns with misuse, and misrepresentation, claiming it has literally no use is objectively false.
Anecdotal would be “I’ve heard people have found uses for it.” Or “My cousin says it helps him do XYZ.”
I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal, that is a definitive, replicateable, counter point.
You have decided to dismiss it, because making a universal sweeping claim inherently requires the dismissal of all counter points in order to remain intact.
I’m sorry that you’re so angry, and have convinced yourself the world is trying to gaslight you, that doesn’t seem like a healthy belief. I won’t be responding further.
Just FYI, at this point this guy has been provided 2 links on the Pyfed codeberg repository that show AI was used in the development of PieFed and he says he won’t use anything that did, so any further replies from him make him a hypocrite for using software that used AI while being developed. He’s a troll/wasting your time.
No you’re not. This claim has nothing to do with your personal experience. You are citing your personal experience as evidence. You’re doing the exact same thing you’re accusing me of, only I have provided actual evidence to back up my statements, and you haven’t.
I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal
Why didn’t you remark on my own usage? You’re speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others. Your personal experience is not more valid than others. Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?
Edit.
Upon re-reading your reply, I have to ask a simple question. What would need to be demonstrated in order to change your mind? If you can think of an honest criteria, we can keep talking about it. If your first response is to say “There is literally nothing that can change my mind.” Then this is not a discussion, it is simply you expressing anger and indignation.
And I’m sorry to say, but if you’re engaging in conversation without a single iota of willingness to see the other sides perspective or reasoning, then you’re a bad conversation partner and are consciously choosing to be arrogant, even if your side is the “Correct” side.
Have I come across as rude or dismissive that you felt the need to mock and belittle me? I tried to form my response respectfully while pointing out possible areas of bias.
Why would I comment on your usage?
I am not ignoring anything, I just literally cannot speak to your experience. I can only speak to mine.
They’ve been grifted, yes. I know they have because I’ve had these conversations over and over again. They come to me with some sort of untrue statement. I ask them where they got it. They say Google. I ask them if it’s the AI Overview and they say yes. I ask them where the AI got that information. They have no idea. I use a real search engine, find an authoritative source that directly and clearly refutes their statement, and they’re confused as to how I got it. They are completely ignorant to the fact that it’s constantly wrong and that it’s use is literally making them dumber, not only because the answer is wrong, but because they’re not actually exercising their brain to find it.
You should speak to others experiences because you are making the universal statement that is has literally no uses, contrary to many people stating they have, in fact, found uses for it.
So either every single person that believes they have found a novel use for it is wrong. Or you have universally decided that none of their experiences are valid in forming your opinion.
Considering I have found a use for it, that does not require it to write code, paint pictures, or tell me I’m right about everything, why is my usage invalid in nullifying your statement that “GenAI does not have any uses.”
There is no ambiguity in that statement, and yet I have found use for it.
My brother in Christ, what did I just say? I literally cannot. I don’t know anything about your experiences. They’re your experiences. And I just finished explaining exactly how people’s experiences are invalid because they don’t understand what’s happening. What do you want?
You’re contradicting yourself and not seeing it. You’re universally saying it has absolutely no uses, and using your own experiences and others, as evidence. When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.
Either other peoples experiences are valid, and you must accept that some people have found genuine uses for the technology, despite your hatred for the industry and the false marketing around it.
Or other peoples experiences are not valid, in which case there’s no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.
This is what evidence looks like
Your experience is not evidence. It’s an anecdote.
In a world where everyone and their fucking mother has been trying relentlessly to gaslight me into believing this for 3 fucking years, despite any and all available evidence, yes, I absolutely will not. I’m long past done entertaining the notion.
Actually, that’s materially incorrect. You are making the universal claim that a technology has literally no uses, and every single person that claims otherwise is either ignorant, or has been grifted.
I am making the counter-argument that, while I agree with the overall concerns with misuse, and misrepresentation, claiming it has literally no use is objectively false.
Anecdotal would be “I’ve heard people have found uses for it.” Or “My cousin says it helps him do XYZ.”
I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal, that is a definitive, replicateable, counter point.
You have decided to dismiss it, because making a universal sweeping claim inherently requires the dismissal of all counter points in order to remain intact.
I’m sorry that you’re so angry, and have convinced yourself the world is trying to gaslight you, that doesn’t seem like a healthy belief. I won’t be responding further.
Just FYI, at this point this guy has been provided 2 links on the Pyfed codeberg repository that show AI was used in the development of PieFed and he says he won’t use anything that did, so any further replies from him make him a hypocrite for using software that used AI while being developed. He’s a troll/wasting your time.
No you’re not. This claim has nothing to do with your personal experience. You are citing your personal experience as evidence. You’re doing the exact same thing you’re accusing me of, only I have provided actual evidence to back up my statements, and you haven’t.
…yes? That’s the definition of anecdotal.