Exclusive War with Iran starting this week? (5 Viewers)

[JfizzleBlazer]

 

[2Fluffy4U]

No I think twitter posts and AI are not the same. A Twitter post is sharing what someone else is saying. Users can do their own research on if they agree or not.

You posting AI slop, means you are passing it off as if it is your own writing and opinion. Which is disingenuous. Users can still do their own research, but you are taking ownership of it as your own.

If you rewrote things and it wasn't so obvious you are copying and pasting, nobody would care.

Fair point on transparency, I've never hidden that I use Claude, I've said it openly multiple times in this thread. That's the opposite of disingenuous. The ideas are mine, the framework is mine, the questions I'm asking are mine. AI helps me organize and articulate them more clearly than I could bashing them out on a phone keyboard. If the argument holds up, it holds up regardless of what tool helped write it. Attack the logic, not the workflow.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I am 40. I work with AI daily.
I recommned joining the wagon. I prefer my comments based and factual. Verified. I use AI to help me make sure I dont write conspiracies.

Sure it is. But what is your interest? What do you want?

I want my country to work for the greater good.

 

[crandc]

First, I am not on Twitter although I occasionally show someone's tweet.

Problem with your AI: It makes premises that are just not factually correct. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, has EVER mistaken Trump for some kind of strategic genius. Any time you post something that claims he is strategic thinker or even that he appointed such people to his cabinet, frankly, it makes the entire post have zero credibility. My cat is a vastly better strategic planner than Trump.

There are some sources that have reliability by virtue of a history of being generally factually correct. Not perfect, but usually.
AI is not one such.

 

[2Fluffy4U]

First, I am not on Twitter although I occasionally show someone's tweet.

Problem with your AI: It makes premises that are just not factually correct. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, has EVER mistaken Trump for some kind of strategic genius. Any time you post something that claims he is strategic thinker or even that he appointed such people to his cabinet, frankly, it makes the entire post have zero credibility. My cat is a vastly better strategic planner than Trump.

There are some sources that have reliability by virtue of a history of being generally factually correct. Not perfect, but usually.
AI is not one such.

That post was a shared hebrew translated into english written analisys from an Israeli analyist. It was refernced in the post as a 'view' / topic for consideration - not factual data premise.
Claiming no one has ever claimed that only makes the point very narrow and centralist - unable to fathom 'others' ideations and conspetions.
Here is a subreddit with someone claiming Trump is a strategic genius - (I was not sharing his ideation here) but just saying that nullyfies your comment.

 

[riverman]

AI in a chat room to me is like playing online chess against a robot. No thanks. I like the human element of discussion more than one run through bot filters. I think any chat post containing that format should lead with the disclaimer that a bot is formulating the text, not a forum member. I enjoy the conversational aspect of chat more than the cut and paste media arguments that lots of folks use in chats. That's just me though. I give zero fucks about bringing a mountain of editorials to the pub to have an argument about current affairs

 

[2Fluffy4U]

AI in a chat room to me is like playing online chess against a robot. No thanks. I like the human element of discussion more than one run through bot filters. I think any chat post containing that format should lead with the disclaimer that a bot is formulating the text, not a forum member. I enjoy the conversational aspect of chat more than the cut and paste media arguments that lots of folks use in chats. That's just me though. I give zero fucks about bringing a mountain of editorials to the pub to have an argument about current affairs

I know AI is not the topic, but i'd like to share my 2 cents about it.
1. I expect around 50% chance that within 5 years we reach singularity. 90% in ten years IMO.
The point I am trying to make is that AI is going to take over anyway - so right now people are against it.. but it a lost cause..
Its like saying in the late 90s the internet is useless and I rather keep to my TV guide and Britanica. (Those were exact words from my brother at the time ).
Or saying you do not trust car travel and rather stick with horses..
Just sharing my views. No need to agree with it.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The left already knows what we'd do

Pretty sure the right knows too. Nobody cares for Trump at this point.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Mark Twain is credited with saying, "Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

 

[riverman]

Or saying you do not trust car travel and rather stick with horses.

To me it's more like preferring a live band in a club instead of a karaoke machine.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I have never met a 40 year old that loves AI and wants to embrace it.

I don't think anyone denies there could be some value and it can change the way we do work.

The problem is when you stop thinking yourself, and start having it write out entire responses for you, there won't be that much longer until you think plants want Brawndo because it has electrolytes.

 

[crandc]

That post was a shared hebrew translated into english written analisys from an Israeli analyist. It was refernced in the post as a 'view' / topic for consideration - not factual data premise.
Claiming no one has ever claimed that only makes the point very narrow and centralist - unable to fathom 'others' ideations and conspetions.
Here is a subreddit with someone claiming Trump is a strategic genius - (I was not sharing his ideation here) but just saying that nullyfies your comment.

I get English is not your first language and frankly you are pretty awesome writing your own thoughts in English. No need to use bots.
That does not nullify my comment. Kool-Aid drinking cultists would swear Trump shits gold like the Lannisters. Perhaps I should have said no one halfway serious or reliable?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Mark Twain is credited with saying, "Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

Sometimes I need to think about this quote more often.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that people following this advice allowed the tea party to form evolve into MAGA...

Even though they don't believe in evolution.

Or vaccines.

Or that earth is round.

Or that the moon landing happened...