You’re perceived intention should be irrelevant during an argument. Either expose the belief directly so it can be engaged with honestly, or focus on the logic of the argument being made. It is entirely possible to be both correct in your argument and incorrect in the foundational belief. But engaging with a factually correct argument with the assumption that it was borne from a place of ignorance just makes YOU less capable of being reasonable.

The first poster made a claim, and assigned faulty logic as justification.

The second poster pointed out the flaw in this logic.

The third poster ignored the logic argument entirely and resorted to an appeal to outrage rather than the structure of the argument itself.

Personal experience, beliefs, gender, identity. All of these points are entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The title of this post was about logic. The second commenter pointed out a legitimate logical error, and the third commenter exposed themselves at appealing to indignation and dressing it up as an argument. You (royal you) shouldn’t support bad reasoning just because it agrees with you.

If you weight 500lbs, it’s becuase you eat more than you need. Biology is pure math. Calories in, calories out. There is no opinion or empathy in that calculation.

Medication and living situations can definitely effect it though, and those who struggle with weight absolutely deserve support and kindness.

But society needs both sides of the friction to genuinely encourage change. The condemnation side to prevent normalization, and the support side to welcome those who wish to change.

I support and encourage those who need it. But I will continue to condemn and mock those who refuse.

I actually fully agree with you, and the point about the alcoholics is quite pertinent. We don’t tell alcoholics they don’t need to change, and we also mock them for being self destructive.

I also fully agree that mocking does not lead to change, encouragement and support does. However, LACK of mocking leads to normalization. I think support and condemnation are 2 sides of the same coin. We should be supporting those who need it, and condemning those who arrogantly refuse.

And I may be conflating the 2, but I am quite confident that most of these obese ICE racists have no desire to better themselves.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think we should be telling people it’s “Okay” to be morbidly obese. It isn’t okay. It’s extremely dangerous, and a massive resource drain. I don’t see a problem with openly mocking and insulting people who have tattooed swastikas on their foreheads, nor do I see a problem with openly mocking and insulting people who weight a full x3 - x4 what their healthy weight is.

Obviously swastikas and obesity are not the same thing. But the point is, I don’t think it’s a universal taboo to mock people’s appearances.

Body positivity should be “It’s okay if you’re not a super model, there are many body shapes and sizes.” Not “It’s okay to eat nothing but fast food and twinkies. Your doctor is fat-phobic if they tell you to lose weight.”

Yeah, I figured that was probably the case when I asked what evidence might change their mind, and the question was just ignored. Still, I was mildly entertained by pointing out their logical errors, so it wasn’t a complete waste of my time lol.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then why have seasoned programmers accepted that getting an LLM to generate messy code, then tidying it up, is often faster than writing 2 dozen lines themselves?

Or myself, I use it with TTRPGs, to simplify NPC creation under a set of structured rules. I still play the characters as unique individuals, but being able to click a button and have 4 personality points to base any nameless NPC around is a lot more fun and dynamic than trying to come up with new characters I didn’t expect the group to speak to, on the spot.

Claiming it does not have any uses at all seems like an expression of your own lack of creativity, or willingness to adapt to new technology. I don’t need to worship the tech-bros to find a use for new technologies.

Can GenAI replace a human? No. There is no context in which human work can be fully replaced by GenAI. But that doesn’t mean it cannot simplify and enhance skilled workers that understand its limitations and use it to increase their own productivity.

Is it possible you’re so engrossed in anger and disgust at how it is being marketed, that you’re deciding to hate the entire concept rather than the fact it is bring misused, and it’s capabilities are being wildly exaggerated to the point of lies? Or that the disgusting manipulation of empty promises on empty promises on empty promises, with the bullshit happening around RAM prices, GPU prices, etc. Or entire workforces being fired in order to be replaced by LLMs is making you prejudiced against the tool, rather than those using it to justify abuse and idiocy?

If hammers were used to kill more people than guns or knives, would you claim there is no reason to ever use or own a hammer?

Yes, and while we’re at it let’d refuse to read books not written by scribes. And refuse clothes not woven by hand.

I understand the frustration with the industry, but at the end of the day it is a tool, and it has its uses. Just because it is being misused doesn’t mean it’s universally bad. This just seems petty and misdirected.

That’s because I’m an idiot! One sec.