> The flaw in your faulty logic is that you are attributing intent and purpose to a tool rather than the user of the tool.

I'm certainly don't attribute any intent to anything in my reasoning, but yes, most tools have a purpose. Suno's purpose, for example, is clearly to create music based on natural language prompts. Not that I have expressed that before, or that my argument relies on that fact, so whether or not you agree, it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

> Additionally, you might also be attributing a persona to a static and mindless tool which is also nonsense.

I might? You should respond to my argument, not address things you baselessly think I believe, which is a waste of both our time.

> You literally replied to a comment concerning the possibility of the word "democratize" having innate positive and/or negative meanings.

I replied to say that "democratize" is the wrong word. My argument to that end doesn't hinge on whether democratization is a positive thing or a negative one. This discussion would be much easier if you responded to my points directly instead of trying to mischaracterize my argument as something it is not. Your response here is very light on directly addressing anything I said, and heavy on insisting that I believe things that I don't.

▲

Dalewyn 7 months ago | parent [-]

>This discussion would be much easier if you responded to my points directly

I can't because you're talking nonsense.

You are essentially saying that guns commit murder, not the user who shot the gun. You are saying that the tool carries intent and purpose, not the user. It's ridiculous, faulty logic and I cannot respond to that other than to point out it's quackery.

	▲	boomlinde 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> I can't because you're talking nonsense. You can't, because your argument at this point doesn't pertain at all to my argument. > You are essentially saying that guns commit murder, not the user who shot the gun. I am explicitly, literally saying that it's not, referring to that exact example, which you'd know if you'd actually taken what I've written into account when writing your response. > You are saying that the tool carries intent and purpose, not the user. Again, I am not, but please go ahead and point out where you believe I am. > It's ridiculous, faulty logic and I cannot respond to that other than to point out it's quackery. That sounds like a you problem. I have no problems responding directly to your points despite of your failure to address my argument at all, to point that fact out if nothing else. This is one of the perks of intellectual honesty: I don't have to pretend that I can't make sense of what you are saying to argue for my point.