| ▲ | famouswaffles 2 hours ago | |||||||
I don't care how sure you are. Honestly, it's irrelevant. 99% of the time, it's a more pleasant and productive conversation for everyone involved if you just focus on issues you had with the text itself than any nebulous AI involvement. From my point of view, all you've done is said a lot of nonsense and fabricated a convoluted explanation for why you think the text is bad. I'm fine on my horse thanks. | ||||||||
| ▲ | soulofmischief an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||
People can no longer freely point out when the fact that a piece of work is automated and the lack of meat are red flags as to the veracity of the content, but your antagonistic metacommentary for other people pointing out factual information is welcome discourse? You claimed "this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated" is "poor form", attacking the parent commenter by claiming they are lying about the nature of the content. However, multiple people have pointed out the clear signs which you missed, and the consensus is that you were wrong. Now you suddenly don't care about this point, and have introduced a new argument instead. "From my point of view, all you've done is said a lot of nonsense and fabricated a convoluted explanation for why you think the text is bad" What a bad-faith response. Categorically dismissive, vague, antagonistic and ultimately failing to critically engage with anything I said. | ||||||||
| ||||||||