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
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.