Opinionhaver

@Opinionhaver@feddit.uk

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re free to say “I hate all AI-generated content” - but the issue isn’t what you believe you hate, it’s whether you can know that what you hate is in fact AI-generated.

  You don’t need 100% detection accuracy to hate some AI content. But if you claim to hate all AI content, then the reliability of your detection absolutely matters. Because if even one piece slipped by - and you didn’t hate it - your statement is no longer true.

  And considering how much AI-generated content is already out there - usually unlabeled and increasingly indistinguishable - it’s statistically improbable that everything you’ve consumed and didn’t hate was human-made. You may feel confident about your preferences, but you’re arguing from certainty where none is possible. That’s not a logical stance - it’s ideological.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  That would require you to be able to detect AI-generated content with 100% accuracy, which simply isn’t the case.

  What you actually have is a prejudice - you dislike content when you suspect or find out it’s AI-generated. But there’s undoubtedly AI-generated content you’ve encountered without realizing, and likely didn’t mind. Just as there’s human-made content you dislike.

  You don’t hate all AI-generated content. You hate the idea of AI-generated content. That reaction is ideological, not purely about quality.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re not really engaging with what I said. I’m not claiming everyone who listens enjoys it, just pointing out that some clearly do - and if enough people are voluntarily replaying it or adding it to playlists, then the “slop” label starts sounding more like prejudice than critique.

  There’s always filler and mediocrity in any medium - human or AI. We just don’t call it “slop” when it’s made by a garage band or a beginner solo artist. That word feels like it’s doing extra work here - as if the low quality is inherent to all AI content independent of the end result. And that’s exactly the bias I’m pointing to.

  You can say it’s “AI slop,” but if it passes for music some people want to listen to, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate what that label is even supposed to mean.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not exactly “slop” if people are listening to it and presumably enjoying it. That just goes to show it’s not AI-generated content in general that people dislike - it’s bad AI-generated content. If the content is good, people are drawn to it regardless of who or what made it - as it should be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When voting for judges in elections, how are you supposed to know which are good? (Since none of them publicly express their political opinions, judges are *supposed* to be neutral)⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  As far as I know, many of the judges Trump appointed during his first term are now making rulings against his interests - despite having been seen as “aligned” when appointed. So in other words: you can’t know. Just make sure they’re competent and fit for the task.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why don't more people use Bilibili instead of YouTube?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Because I have no issues with YouTube. I’d much rather use American spyware than Chinese one.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why does good faith matter ?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think actually believing the views you defend is relevant here. Playing devil’s advocate can be done in good faith. In fact, I’d argue that being able to clearly articulate a view you don’t hold is a sign that you’ve genuinely understood your opposition’s arguments. You don’t need to be convinced by them yourself.

  What does make it bad faith is if you put those arguments forward but then refuse to engage with the counterarguments - that’s where the line gets crossed.

  For example, I don’t agree with the reasons Russia has given for attacking Ukraine, but I can still lay out those arguments in a way a pro-Russian person would recognize as accurate. That, on its own, isn’t bad faith. But if someone responds by calling me a delusional Nazi or something similar, that is bad faith - a strawman, specifically - even if that person genuinely believes people who argue that position deserve such a label.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why does good faith matter ?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  they don’t believe in the argument they are presenting

  I don’t think that’s the case here. While people might lie when there’s something to gain from it, we generally don’t hold views we don’t believe in - because that creates cognitive dissonance.

  More often, I think it’s that people hold views they feel are true on an intuitive level, but these beliefs usually aren’t something they’ve arrived at independently from first principles. Instead, they’ve adopted them from somewhere else - social groups, media, culture - and haven’t really thought them through.

  The belief becomes part of their identity, and they accept it at face value. They know they’re right, so anyone who disagrees must automatically be wrong. That makes it easy to dismiss or ridicule opposing views rather than trying to understand where that “false belief” comes from. After all, why waste time listening to someone who just doesn’t get what you already know to be true?

  What people need is humility. There’s no way one can be right about literally everything - we just don’t know what we’re wrong about. It might be something trivial but it also might be one of our core beliefs. The truth is not always intuitive or something that we like. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why does good faith matter ?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  So you think twisting people’s words, lying, cherry-picking information, and attacking them personally - rather than addressing their actual point - is a good way to make them change their minds?

  I don’t think you really believe that either, but if I were to engage with you in bad faith, that’s what it would look like.

  Good faith doesn’t mean you have to be polite - it means you make a genuine effort to understand what someone is actually saying and engage with that, rather than a cartoon version of their argument. That cartoon version might get you cheers from the audience, but it’s not going to change anyone’s mind. And if minds aren’t being changed - and no serious effort is even made to try - then what’s the point of the debate in the first place?

  I’d argue that if someone is genuinely trying to persuade another person, it’s virtually impossible to debate in bad faith. Acting in bad faith means you don’t care whether the other person changes their mind - you just want to dunk on them, be mean, pretend they said something they didn’t, and rally a mob to dogpile on them. Then you tell yourself you’ve “won” the debate because you’re getting upvotes and they’re not - even though all you’ve really done is push them further into their corner.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I hear a lot of "ACAB", why don't I hear "APAB"? (P as in Politician)⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Name for this kind of slogan is a “Thought-terminating clishé”

  A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language—often passing as folk wisdom—intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance with a cliché rather than a point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t see why it would be a bad thing. There’s probably more to gain there than to lose if you want to think it that way.

  I go discgolfing with one of my customer regularly.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple to Australians: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple to Australians: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  So they didn’t…

  The title should quote what they actually said rather than putting their own bias on it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple to Australians: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t even need to read the article to know that they didn’t actually say that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do fancy cars look fancy and cheap cars don't? Can't you just slap a Lamborghini-style chassis onto a lawnmower engine if you want?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Is chassis manufacturing more difficult than it seems

  Yes, I remember watching a video explaining how the bend on the side of an Audi differs between cheaper and more expensive models due to ease of manufacturing. That makes intuitive sense too: a nicely carved stick is more valuable and takes more time to make than one that’s simply had the bark removed. The body design of a Lamborghini is orders of magnitude more elaborate than that of a VW Golf so ofcourse it’s going to also cost much more.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No, it doesn’t. If I watch a 15-second funny video from nine years ago, my feed gets flooded with other short clips like that - that’s just how the algorithm works. My personal experience doesn’t support the claim that right-wing media is being disproportionately pushed to people who aren’t interested in it. If I click on that kind of video, it means I’m interested in it - so of course I get recommended more.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Well yeah, isn’t that the whole point of the recommendation algorithm? To suggest content people might find engaging. If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized? What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Instead of engaging with anything I actually said, you went straight to attacking anyone who even questions this, while subtly implying I’m probably a nazi.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This just sounds so strange to me because, in my case, it works exactly the way you said you wish it did.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Since the right wing stuff still gets pushed to the front page

  I find this hard to believe since it goes against my decades long personal experience using YouTube. The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging. In my experience, YouTube does a great job of recommending me the kind of content I actually like to watch.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  if you have the true conviction of your beliefs

  I can sympathize with this.

  My personal view is that when you silence speech, you leave people with no other means of influence but violence.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’d imagine that the inflammatory content in question mostly gets demonetized just the same, so I don’t really see what the issue is. It’s not like a specific kind of content is being treated differently, or is it?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Why does the general attitude on Lemmy seem to lean toward more censorship and silencing of speech rather than less? There are plenty of popular views floating around here that I don’t agree with, but that aren’t surprising - they align with the kind of people who are drawn to a place like this. This one, however, is surprising.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not on any other social media, so I can’t comment on that. I’m sure it existed on Reddit as well, but the user base there was more ideologically diverse, so extremism would usually get pushback no matter where it came from. Lemmy, on the other hand, is much more of a left-wing echo chamber, so those kinds of comments mostly just get applause, and calling them out tends to lead to being shunned instead. I don’t follow political instances, but I still encounter these kinds of comments regularly - and they’re usually upvoted by several people.

  Image

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  My comment wasn’t meant to defend OP or claim he was treated unfairly. He knowingly broke a community rule and accepted the risk of being banned. I don’t see injustice there, and I even said that mods are just people and can do whatever they want - it’s part of how this place works, for better or worse.

  What I was commenting on was the broader dynamic I see across Lemmy: the general negativity, hostility, and tribalism that seem to dominate the tone of this place. OP’s situation just happened to illustrate that vibe quite nicely. I wasn’t defending the specific post - just pointing out how quickly things escalate into labels, assumptions, and hostility, and how that seems to be the norm here.

  I also take no issue with exclusive communities. One for just men would equally be fair game.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh, I don’t mind an argument.

  I agree that just making a post about not wanting to see that wouldn’t be productive - nobody cares what they want or don’t want, because this place isn’t made for them. But that’s also no less productive than the angry posts themselves. Simply complaining isn’t productive, and that applies to both examples.

  However, discussing these topics and what to do about them is productive - as is engaging in a conversation about whether simply expressing anger serves any useful purpose. He acknowledged he was breaking the rules and was willing to get banned for it, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be frustrated when that also results in being banned from other communities whose rules he hadn’t actually broken.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  OP said his post was about the angry posts coming from that community so that’s what I was commenting on.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Banned across multiple communities, posts deleted, for upsetting a mod⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Mods and admins here are just regular people. They can ban you simply because they don’t like your username, and there’s not really anything you can do about it. It’s clearly not ideal, but I guess that’s just the nature of the Fediverse. On the other hand, you can make a new account in about two minutes and be unbanned - so there’s that.

  I do sympathize with you. While I can’t read the deleted post, you said it was written in good faith, and I believe you. Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain. That’s something I find deeply relatable. It’s not unique to Lemmy, but it’s definitely a real problem on social media these days. Most people who comment just want to circlejerk, break things, and throw stones. They don’t want to hear criticism or engage in difficult conversations because their minds are already made up - there’s nothing to discuss. Everyone sees what happens to those who challenge the groupthink, so they don’t. They either knowingly self-censor or have deluded themselves to the point that they automatically agree with whatever narrative is popular. It’s like those experiments where you’re shown a paper with lines of different lengths, and one is clearly longer, but after hearing four other people say it isn’t, you end up agreeing with them despite what your own eyes are telling you.

  I could go on and on about this. Thank god I get to meet and talk with regular people through my job - otherwise, I’d definitely think the fringe views I see overrepresented on social media are far more popular than they actually are. This whole social media thing is a messed-up psychological experiment being carried out on all of humanity - and no one ever consented to it. Now we’re just reaping what we sowed.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Fascism won’t kill you. I hope you don’t actually believe that - and if you do, I’d genuinely recommend finding someone to talk to.

  As for your question: yes and no. Yes, in the sense that you’re most likely consuming way too much news, which has undoubtedly contributed to feeling that way. But the false assumption you seem to be making is that if you stop reading the news, you’ll be completely oblivious to what’s going on around you. If you truly don’t want to know what’s happening in the world, you’d have to go live alone in the forest and never talk to anyone again. Otherwise, you’re going to hear about most things anyway - and if, by some miracle, you manage to entirely avoid hearing about something, it almost certainly wasn’t important in the first place.

  No one is obligated to consume the news at the cost of their mental health. Reading the news doesn’t fix the world. “Staying informed” doesn’t fix the world. Talking about politics online doesn’t fix the world. If someone wants to do something about it, then do something about it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨ChatGPT 'got absolutely wrecked' by Atari 2600 in beginner's chess match — OpenAI's newest model bamboozled by 1970s logic⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Isn’t this kind of like ridiculing that same Atari for not being able to form coherent sentences? It’s not all that surprising that a system not designed to play chess loses to a system designed specifically for that purpose.