Thanks! Your 4D chess was my inspiration. Either you have no understanding of the tools you use, the content they generate, and the billionaire propaganda you’ve swallowed while ignoring every single piece of technical knowledge you have in theory or this whole this was a masterclass we all can learn from. Immediately responding to criticism with strawmen, linking the current tech con to the last tech con, losing track of your personas, all fantastic work!
The path to comprehending the complete picture involves engaging in dialogue to grasp the trade-offs considered by each person. This only works if everyone is actually engaging in dialogue, though.
It is crucial to recognize that disagreements generally arise from individuals approaching the problem from different perspectives. I presented my perspective and you went after some straw men. Are there personal insecurities that hinder the expression of contrary opinions here?
Thanks for clarifying that you utterly failed to understand what was being said to you. My point was that the actual problem is with the capitalist system itself. Stuff like Crypto, NFTs, and generative AI is not the root cause of the problems, it’s simply a symptom of an underlying problem. Getting upset over these things is a complete and utter waste of energy, and it’s utterly misguided. Let me know if you’re still having trouble understanding my point and need me to use smaller words to get it across.
The only one struggling with “non sequitur” and “strawman” and “basic connections to underlying language” is you. Since you keep using these terms without evidently understanding them or even understanding the content of what’s being said to you. The irony here of you exhibiting generative model behavior while raging against them is quite hilarious.
None of the points you’ve listed actually address my argument, and it’s pretty clear that you’re either incapable of understanding it or intentionally avoid engaging with it. My blog in no way contradicts my online persona, but I guess that’s something you felt important to throw in as a way of ad hominem in lieu of having any actual point to make.
I love it when trolls get angry and start using Latin terms to make themselves sound clever.
Thanks! Your 4D chess was my inspiration. Either you have no understanding of the tools you use, the content they generate, and the billionaire propaganda you’ve swallowed while ignoring every single piece of technical knowledge you have in theory or this whole this was a masterclass we all can learn from. Immediately responding to criticism with strawmen, linking the current tech con to the last tech con, losing track of your personas, all fantastic work!
I applaud you for being able to produce content indistinguishable from a chat bot. A really clever way to illustrate why we don’t actually need LLMs.
The path to comprehending the complete picture involves engaging in dialogue to grasp the trade-offs considered by each person. This only works if everyone is actually engaging in dialogue, though.
Hence why it’s pointless trying to have an actual discussion with people like you.
It is crucial to recognize that disagreements generally arise from individuals approaching the problem from different perspectives. I presented my perspective and you went after some straw men. Are there personal insecurities that hinder the expression of contrary opinions here?
Thanks for clarifying that you utterly failed to understand what was being said to you. My point was that the actual problem is with the capitalist system itself. Stuff like Crypto, NFTs, and generative AI is not the root cause of the problems, it’s simply a symptom of an underlying problem. Getting upset over these things is a complete and utter waste of energy, and it’s utterly misguided. Let me know if you’re still having trouble understanding my point and need me to use smaller words to get it across.
Oh my goodness simpler words would be nice since we’re struggling with “non sequitur” and “strawman” and “basic connections to underlying language.”
I appreciate your summary! Here’s mine:
The only one struggling with “non sequitur” and “strawman” and “basic connections to underlying language” is you. Since you keep using these terms without evidently understanding them or even understanding the content of what’s being said to you. The irony here of you exhibiting generative model behavior while raging against them is quite hilarious.
None of the points you’ve listed actually address my argument, and it’s pretty clear that you’re either incapable of understanding it or intentionally avoid engaging with it. My blog in no way contradicts my online persona, but I guess that’s something you felt important to throw in as a way of ad hominem in lieu of having any actual point to make.
Cheers.