Israel-Hamas War 2023

[The Brain]

Yeah.

[dist]

For me, it's about form and politeness. There is something very passive-aggressive in answering someone by posting a wall of text generated by an AI dismantling that person's post. "Here is what a machine thinks of your message" is not a taken down I would like to receive in a human-to-human argumentation, nor read as a bystander. It's lazy.

I'm on the fence about AI and still use it professionally, to help find terms or orient me towards sources. It can be useful if you know how to compensate for its weaknesses, and I don't see a problem with DGuller wanting to comfort his reading of Valmy's post. But he could have answered him without reposting Chat's text. Imo, in that specific conversation, doing that was as good an answer as giving Valmy a finger.

[The Brain]

I was curious, so I asked ChatGPT to summarize Languish:

katmai is fat.

[Syt]

I use AI for various professional and personal stuff. However, posting it like DGuller did above gives off strong "I can't be bothered to deal with you" vibes. I'm less critical of him using ChatGPT to parse comments or check his answers before posting - I'm someone who struggles sometimes with picking up social cues, and online it can be even harder, so double checking when you have doubts doesn't sound terrible (not something I do, but I can see some validity for it).

[Jacob]

I don't get the animosity against the ChatGPT evaluation.  It's the response you would get your friendly neighborhood English professor.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I post on languish it's to have a back and forth with the people with whom I have a years-long history, not bullet points expanded through chatGPT. If I want chatGPT to evaluate and respond to my posts, I don't need a languish poster to do it.

When someone uses chatGPT to make a response, it send a signal that the responder can't be bothered to engage with the actual substance* of the back and forth. In this particular case, it wasn't even subtext but the actual point. dguller leads with:

I'll have ChatGPT evaluate this, since this clearly doesn't deserve any of my time.

Though, I suppose if folks are interested in why there's such a hostile reaction to dguller's chatGPT response - and they don't have a problem with chatGPT generated content - I suggest that they paste the text of dguller's response into chatGPT with prompts that answer the question of "why is posting this chatGPT response on our message board unacceptable to our message board community"**

* this being languish the "substance of the back and forth" could be a genuine exchange of opinions, a somewhat rigourous analysis of the question, posturing for "internet points", stupid puns, mutual confusion, and/ or some combination of all of those.

** if you want more pathos in the answer you could use different negative framings such as "intellectually lazy" or "rude" or whatever else you desire.

[DGuller]

Just to be clear, and I said this both times, I did in fact quote ChatGPT because I was exasperated.  For example, this was the first post I replied to:

I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions.

Where is the actual substance to engage with, exactly?  Where is the outrage about the rudeness in that?

[Admiral Yi]

Just to be clear, and I said this both times, I did in fact quote ChatGPT because I was exasperated.  For example, this was the first post I replied to:

I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions.

Where is the actual substance to engage with, exactly?  Where is the outrage about the rudeness in that?

The substance lies in the meaning of ridiculous.  "Please elaborate" gives your counter party the opportunity to demonstrate their bona fides.

[Jacob]

It was rude. However since rudeness is pretty standard on languish, it doesn't explain the intensity of the reaction you got.

Logically that suggests that people object to something other than the rudeness.

Certainly rudeness was tertiary to the point I was making.

[mongers]

I don't get the animosity against the ChatGPT evaluation.  It's the response you would get your friendly neighborhood English professor.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I post on languish it's to have a back and forth with the people with whom I have a years-long history, not bullet points expanded through chatGPT. If I want chatGPT to evaluate and respond to my posts, I don't need a languish poster to do it.

When someone uses chatGPT to make a response, it send a signal that the responder can't be bothered to engage with the actual substance* of the back and forth. In this particular case, it wasn't even subtext but the actual point. dguller leads with:

I'll have ChatGPT evaluate this, since this clearly doesn't deserve any of my time.

Though, I suppose if folks are interested in why there's such a hostile reaction to dguller's chatGPT response - and they don't have a problem with chatGPT generated content - I suggest that they paste the text of dguller's response into chatGPT with prompts that answer the question of "why is posting this chatGPT response on our message board unacceptable to our message board community"**

* this being languish the "substance of the back and forth" could be a genuine exchange of opinions, a somewhat rigourous analysis of the question, posturing for "internet points", stupid puns, mutual confusion, and/ or some combination of all of those.

** if you want more pathos in the answer you could use different negative framings such as "intellectually lazy" or "rude" or whatever else you desire.

[DGuller]

Just to be clear, and I said this both times, I did in fact quote ChatGPT because I was exasperated.  For example, this was the first post I replied to:

I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions.

Where is the actual substance to engage with, exactly?  Where is the outrage about the rudeness in that?

The substance lies in the meaning of ridiculous.  "Please elaborate" gives your counter party the opportunity to demonstrate their bona fides.

The "meaning of ridiculous" was not in the post, only the word itself was.  It didn't reciprocate the human effort I put into making the point up to then, and it also didn't give any indication that such reciprocation was forthcoming later.  It's not how you signal that you're open for a meaningful discussion.

When you reply to someone and don't want them to perceive disrespect, would you reply with just "ridiculous"?

[Admiral Yi]

The "meaning of ridiculous" was not in the post, only the word itself was.  It didn't reciprocate the human effort I put into making the point up to then, and it also didn't give any indication that such reciprocation was forthcoming later.  It's not how you signal that you're open for a meaningful discussion.

When you reply to someone and don't want them to perceive disrespect, would you reply with just "ridiculous"?

The meaning is intrinsic to the word.

I am sympathetic to Valmy in this particular case because given the choice between constructing a long thoughtful post of response that gets ignored, and posting a short challenging polemic that throws down the gauntlet, I will almost invariably choose the latter.  If someone picks up the challenge than I am happy to proceed in that vein.

That's what I mean by bona fides.  If someone throws down the gauntlet then runs away from the joust, they have shown they have no reasoning or facts to defend their polemic. 

[Jacob]

I am sympathetic to Valmy in this particular case because given the choice between constructing a long thoughtful post of response that gets ignored, and posting a short challenging polemic that throws down the gauntlet, I will almost invariably choose the latter.  If someone picks up the challenge than I am happy to proceed in that vein.

That's what I mean by bona fides.  If someone throws down the gauntlet then runs away from the joust, they have shown they have no reasoning or facts to defend their polemic. 

I found this a useful insight into your approach to discussion on languish. Thank you for the added clarity 

[DGuller]

The "meaning of ridiculous" was not in the post, only the word itself was.  It didn't reciprocate the human effort I put into making the point up to then, and it also didn't give any indication that such reciprocation was forthcoming later.  It's not how you signal that you're open for a meaningful discussion.

When you reply to someone and don't want them to perceive disrespect, would you reply with just "ridiculous"?

The meaning is intrinsic to the word.

I am sympathetic to Valmy in this particular case because given the choice between constructing a long thoughtful post of response that gets ignored, and posting a short challenging polemic that throws down the gauntlet, I will almost invariably choose the latter.  If someone picks up the challenge than I am happy to proceed in that vein.

That's what I mean by bona fides.  If someone throws down the gauntlet then runs away from the joust, they have shown they have no reasoning or facts to defend their polemic. 

I see your point.  Still, I hope we all can see how it can be hard to tell the difference between an invitation to a discussion and a hit-and-run dunking when you don't watch carefully where you're throwing the gauntlet.

[Admiral Yi]

Still, I hope we all can see how it can be hard to tell the difference between an invitation to a discussion and a hit-and-run dunking when you don't watch carefully where you're throwing the gauntlet.

"Please elaborate" does narrow down the possibilities.

[Zoupa]

Apart from the use of chatgpt, the smugness and condescension that drips from almost all of DG's posts is what prevents me from engaging.