this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
306 points (97.8% liked)
PC Gaming
12069 readers
666 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion.
PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm convinced you guys just don't read if you've never seen an article that's blatantly loaded with fluff so you'll scroll past more ads. Or maybe y'all are just that obtuse.
We literally had to create a bot to cut out all of the fluff in articles to make news these days more digestible.
I’ve seen tons of them. I never denied the issue. It’s real, and it’s very annoying. But using the fact that AI generated articles exist to justify spouting uninformed opinions based on nothing but a headline is ridiculous.
Instead of reading a headline, assuming it means what you think it does and being wrong, then writing a comment based on that wrong opinion, you could at least glance at the article. You have enough time to write an angry comment, you can’t spend 10 seconds glancing at the article to see if it has any info that the 5 word headline might not have covered?
Or alternatively, if it’s such an imposition, then just don’t comment.
Lmao you didn't even stop to read who you're talking to. I'm not the one who wrote the opinion, and I said as much in my first comment. I don't even agree with the guy.
At least now the downvotes make sense. Y'all are just having a reddit moment.
I saw that you were a different person, I don’t see how that’s relevant. You chimed in saying you also didn’t read the article because of your opinion that most articles now are AI generated nonsense not worth consuming. Nothing in your first comment said you didn’t agree with him at all.
I’d get it if the guy you replied to said “read the article, it’s super interesting!” and then you said “I didn’t read it because most text articles are AI generated nonsense so maybe that’s why they didn’t bother either” to add perspective.
But that wasn’t what happened. The OP spouted a nonsense opinion based off what he thought was going on, which was wrong, the next guy told him to read the article before running his mouth, and you chimed in to say “who reads articles, it’s all AI generated nonsense anyways now” which to me, comes off as a defense of spouting uninformed bullshit based off zero information.
🤦♀️ "I'd get it if the guy you replied to said exactly what he said."