Are you saying I am being disingenuous in my intentions by making counter points in a discussion?
Yes, that’s very clearly what’s happening here.
Comment on Why do people hate AI so much?
rabiezaater@piefed.social 21 hours agoAre you saying I am being disingenuous in my intentions by making counter points in a discussion? Is reflecting people’s ideas back to them the only way to understand them?
knightly@pawb.social 7 hours ago
rabiezaater@piefed.social 3 hours ago
In what way is making a counter point disingenuous? Why do I need to just blindly accept what someone says without any pushback?
knightly@pawb.social 2 hours ago
In what way is making a counter point disingenuous?
It reveals that your intent is not to comprehend another perspective, but to insist upon your own.
Why do I need to just blindly accept what someone says without any pushback?
The thing that you’re being asked to accept is that this someone believes what they say they believe.
Nobody’s asking you to blindly assume that this someone is being honest, but making a counterpoint is not the same thing as asking clarifying questions to probe their perspective for the inconsistencies that would indicate deception.
maniclucky@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
You’re being disingenuous because that’s the only thing you’re doing. You show no signs of actually ingesting or contemplating other points of view, opinions, etc.
rabiezaater@piefed.social 3 hours ago
What signs would you need to see to believe I am ingesting or contemplating other points of view? I have asked questions, tried to discuss the points that were raised, and even told those I disagree that I appreciate their opinion. For those who have been extra pedantic and focused more on the semantics of the arguments (i.e, you), I have had less patience and curiosity, because those arguments are not really relevant to the actual topic, and more of an ad hominem against me as a person. Overall though, I have not called anyone derogatory names (unlike others in this thread), I have not dismissed someone’s ideas out of hand without providing sources or examples, and I feel I have engaged in a respectful and calm manner. I’m not here to troll anyone, I just would like to discuss the topic I have laid out above. Sorry if my approach has not been what you would have preferred, but to be honest, given that you have not actually contributed to the discussion meaningfully, I frankly don’t give a shit. So I’m done debating my debate style, and if you choose to continue focusing on it, as opposed to the debate topic itself, then I will be removing you from my interactions permanently.
maniclucky@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
I’ve had 2 comments not including this one, neither of which discussed semantics. You never responded to my other comment.
While yes, that would indicate bad faith, never said you did that. Can’t speak to others, who shouldn’t do that.
It’s less that you are dismissing things or being disrespectful. It’s that your engagement has a pattern where you aren’t engaging at all with certain points that is very obvious. Your positive bias toward LLMs shows. Whether it is due to legitimate bias or stark contrast within the thread due to a very polarizing topic is tricky to parse but definitely comes off that you are invested in LLMs and are unwilling to acknowledge the downsides in a meaningful way. E.g. your outright dismissal of the lack of ethics because it doesn’t offend you personally and find those that complain to be hypocrites.
Again, do you think you’re responding to someone else? I rattled off a pile of common complaints to which you never responded. At no point did I accuse you of anything or even remark upon your character directly other than observing the stated pattern of avoidance. One inference could possibly be made with my rebuttal of your ethics argument, but it’s kind of a stretch.