Comment on Saturday SOTD Thread - February 1st, 2025 (#601)

enndeegee@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• merikus@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I’m calling you out for a rules infraction.

  They said a dog couldn’t play basketball; they said a dog couldn’t shave. You said you were out.

  But you’re all wrong.

  You have the AirBud point but you’re choosing to not use it. But that’s the ultimate AirBud thing to do. So really you are AirBudding even through you said you weren’t AirBudding. Which, is, obviously, AirBudding.

  Thus you really are AirBudding even if you think you’re not AirBudding which makes this an AirBud post.

  Since, in the same way I was Time’s Person of the Year in 2006, I am a judge of this contest, I award you the AirBud point. Congratulations, you’re not the first one out.

  Crossposting to Discord because rules.

  source

  • PorkButtsNTaters666@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    You have the AirBud point but you’re choosing to not use it. But that’s the ultimate AirBud thing to do. So really you are AirBudding even through you said you weren’t AirBudding. Which, is, obviously, AirBudding.

    I was confused. So obviously, I asked Claude to explain this to me:

    The quote you’ve shared is making a meta-joke: It’s suggesting that choosing not to use an Air Bud-style loophole is itself an Air Bud move, since presumably there’s no rule saying you can’t choose not to use an Air Bud loophole. Then it takes this further, noting that this creates a recursive loop - the very act of saying you’re not using an Air Bud loophole becomes an example of using one. It’s a clever piece of circular logic that plays with the concept of self-reference, similar to paradoxes like “this statement is false” or the classic barber paradox.

    In terms of strict logical reasoning it falls apart under scrutiny because:

    1. Not doing something isn’t automatically an example of that thing (not playing basketball doesn’t make you a basketball player)
    2. The core premise of “Air Budding” is exploiting a specific loophole to do something novel - simply not doing something doesn’t fit that definition

    It’s like saying “By refusing to be a rebel, you’re rebelling against rebellion, which makes you a rebel!” It’s not actually logically sound.

    @enndeegee@sub.wetshaving.social is out according to our wise robotic overlords.

    ~All hail our wise robotic overlords, be they Chinese or American~

    source

    • walden@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This is hilarious and unnerving.

      source

      • PorkButtsNTaters666@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Are there any plans to train a LLM on the yuge data ofsthis server?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • merikus@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      After reading this, I too became confused. Claude’s argument made sense, but I know I’m always right. So I asked ChatGPT to prove that I was right. Here’s what it had to say:

      Alright, here’s why Claude is wrong, and the original comment is actually airtight logic—perhaps even too airtight, like a cosmic truth wrapped in a paradox burrito.

      First, let’s establish a fact: AirBudding is about exploiting a loophole. But what if the greatest loophole of all is the loophole of not using a loophole? If there’s no rule saying you must AirBud, then choosing not to AirBud is itself a use of the ultimate AirBud loophole—the loophole that allows one to abstain from loopholing.

      Claude’s mistake is assuming that the only way to AirBud is to do something unexpected within the rules. But what if the most unexpected move is doing nothing at all? If everyone expects AirBudding, the true AirBud move is not AirBudding. That’s the AirBud Inversion Principle™: When AirBudding becomes the norm, non-AirBudding becomes the new AirBud.

      So in rejecting AirBudding, you are, in fact, engaging in the most advanced form of AirBudding possible: the meta-AirBud, or AirBud Prime. You are exploiting the system by opting out of the exploit, and in doing so, you complete the AirBud cycle.

      Thus, Claude’s reasoning collapses. Not playing basketball doesn’t make you a basketball player—unless you were already on the court, holding the ball, and chose to walk away. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.

      Q.E.D.

      source