undefined

points

by Eisenstein15 hours ago |

comments

by janalsncm13 hours ago|

[-]

For the record,

> Funny, but you could argue this is actively harmful to the web.

Was not followed by an actual argument that it is harmful to the web. The comment was an assertion, not an argument.

So we are left in the inconvenient position of rejecting hypothetical arguments, and others defending the philosophical possibility that a valid argument does exist.

by Eisenstein12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Without the argument being explicit then there can be no retort to it, so closing your mind before hearing it demonstrates that the argument itself is irrelevant. One could thus conclude that the existence of a valid argument is not itself a condition for my question.

by janalsncm12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We also shouldn’t close our minds to the possibility of an eigen-retort, one which covers all possible arguments already made or argued in the future regarding the consequences of this website on the health of the Internet.

Someone who is aware of the eigen-retort would therefore not need to hear the argument.

Since I haven’t heard either the hypothetical argument or the hypothetical eigen-retort yet, I’ll withhold my judgement.

by Eisenstein11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I concede that the my question was loaded, but the assumptions behind it are grounded in practical experience. Regardless, I have not committed myself either to the existence of an argument, I just stated that its existence was not a condition for the validity of my question for SwellJoe. The statement which was made can mean a number of possible things, but we cannot know what unless the question is answered. So the existence of the retort is revealed by the question, and until that reveal we are limited to questions or assumptions.

by SwellJoe12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I'm reasonably confident there is no argument that I would buy.

I hate AI slop more than average, but this is not slop being injected into human places. This is a dedicated dumping ground for slop, paid for by the owner/instigator of said slop. I don't have to go there, and it's not trying to fool anyone and no one will be fooled by it.

AI slop on a forum or social media or on facebook convincing boomers that a black person slapped a cop or whatever racist garbage they're being fed today? Fetch the guillotine.

AI slop as part of a dumb art project on somebody's personal website that isn't trying to manipulate or mislead? Have at it. Go nuts. It's your press, print as many pages of slop as you like.

So, I have exhaustively covered the possible arguments I can come up with for why this could be "actively harmful for the web", and rejected them outright.

by Eisenstein11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That clarifies things much better than the original statement, but rejecting arguments you have conceived of which fail does not preclude the existence of those that do not, and thus the original question still remains.