Average anime community

It’s because these games sell their characters on sex appeal

This is every school surveillance software

Her name was already perfect for it

I don’t think the site admins would be appreciative of my suggestion :^)

In reality, forcing higher standards across the board raises the floor and can prevent enough bad behavior to be useful. Education and experience also encourage good behaviors. Basically, make it illegal to be a bigot, and let people learn why they don’t want to.

No need to manufacture that, we have a surplus inventory already

It’s finally reaching such widespread acceptance that 1. Actual bigots are getting concerned they can’t be bad people anymore and 2. Assorted people are getting tired of the discourse.

“It’s impossible. Let me list 4 exceptions though”

I would expect “faster” to be a way

I feel like the real answer is and has been for a long time some sort of distributed moderation system. Any individual user can take moderation actions. These actions produce visible effects for themself, and to anyone who subscribes to their actions. Create bot users who auto-detect certain types of behavior (horrible stuff like cp or gore) and take actions against it. Auto-subscribe users to the moderation actions of the global bots and community leaders (mods/admins) and allow them to unsubscribe.

We’d probably still need some moderation actions to be absolute and global, though, like banning illegal content.

That’s how all distros work. They exist so that you don’t have to make changes yourself.

Some sort of “report as bot” --> required captcha pipeline would be useful

Ad hominem is when you attack the entity making a claim using something that’s not relevant to the claim itself. Pointing out that someone (general someone, not you) making a claim doesn’t have the right credentials to likely know enough about the subject, or doesn’t live in the area they’re talking about, or is an LLM, aren’t ad hominem, because those observations are relevant to the strength of their argument.

I think the fallacy you’re looking for could best be described as an appeal to authority fallacy? But honestly I’m not entirely sure either. Anyways I think we covered everything… thanks for the debate :)

Ah, now I feel bad for getting a bit snippy there. You were polite and earnest as well. Thanks for the convo 🫡

Ok, I get what you’re saying, but I really don’t know how to say this differently for the third time: that’s not what ad hominem means

What is going on with that lowercase g?

Keyboard and mouse :^)

The Playstation controller is pretty great. I have a PS2 and it still feels nice to use

Don’t think of it as a pyramid scheme, think of it as a pyramid team!

Ok, but if you aren’t assuming it’s valid, there doesn’t need to be evidence of invalidity. If you’re demanding evidence of invalidity, you’re claiming it’s valid in the first place, which you said you aren’t doing. In short: there is no need to disprove something which was not proved in the first place. It was claimed without any evidence besides the LLM’s output, so it can be dismissed without any evidence. (For the record, I do think Google engages in monopolistic practices; I just disagree that the LLM’s claim that this is true, is a valid argument).

To me, all the mental gymnastics about AI outputs being just meaningless nonsense or mere copying of others is a cop-out answer.

How much do you know about how LLMs work? Their outputs aren’t nonsense or copying others directly; what they do is emulate the pattern of how we speak. This also results in them emulating the arguments that we make, and the opinions that we hold, etc., because we those are a part of what we say. But they aren’t reasoning. They don’t know they’re making an argument, and they frequently “make mistakes” in doing so. They will easily say something like… I don’t know, A=B, B=C, and D=E, so A=E, without realizing they’ve missed the critical step of C=D. It’s not a cop-out to say they’re unreliable; it’s reality.

You’re saying ad hominem isn’t valid as a counterargument, which means you think there’s an argument in the first place. But it’s not a counterargument at all, because the LLM’s claim is not an argument.

ETA: And it wouldn’t be ad hominem anyways, since the claim about the reliability of the entity making an argument isn’t unrelated to what’s being discussed. Ad hominem only applies when the insult isn’t valid and related to the argument.

You’re correct, but why are you trusting the output by default? Why ask us to debunk something that is well-known to be easy to lead to the answer you want, and that doesn’t factually understand what it’s saying?