Is your second paragraph not specifically a response to my argument about AI? The fixation on my argument style is really getting old, and highlights how weak the arguments of the vigorously anti-ai camp are, that they need to change the subject to tone policing, rather than actually debating on the merits. I'm done with that, but feel free to keep trying to change the subject.
rabiezaater
joined 2 weeks 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.
In what way is making a counter point disingenuous? Why do I need to just blindly accept what someone says without any pushback?
Very illuminating. Hopefully you are consistent in your ethics and hate every other tool that capitalists use in our modern society to exploit workers and the environment. Definitely don't drive anywhere or work in a job that pays out by the hour.
I love when people dismiss your argument without actually addressing it in any way, instead choosing to focus on pedantic logical fallacy classifications in a theoretical and non-specific way that does not actually explain what fallacies you have executed, and where. Good stuff, really convinced me or your side of the argument.
My point exactly.
If that's the case, then why did you bring up wikipedia vs encycopedias? You're losing me bud.
Why is medical research special? Why is that the only place that AI is valid, and not science or engineering or art or anywhere else?
I'm am no longer engaging with posts that have chosen to change the subject to tone policing. Feel free to actually respond to the topic at hand, but I am not responding to anyone outside of that, such as whether or not I'm discussing the topic appropriately or not.