Perspectivist

joined 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I have not downvoted you in this thread.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

By what logic?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’d be bored out of my mind - same as every time someone starts talking about their dreams.

It’s basically the equivalent of making things up as you go. The moment someone says, "I had this dream last night," I already know none of it actually happened, and I can’t even pretend to care.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

You think you have - but there’s really no way of knowing.

Just because someone writes like a bot doesn’t mean they actually are one. Feeling like "you’ve caught one" doesn’t mean you did - it just means you think you did. You might have been wrong, but you never got confirmation to know for sure, so you have no real basis for judging how good your detection rate actually is. It’s effectively begging the question - using your original assumption as "proof" without actual verification.

And then there’s the classic toupee fallacy: "All toupees look fake - I’ve never seen one that didn’t." That just means you’re good at spotting bad toupees. You can’t generalize from that and claim you’re good at detecting toupees in general, because all the good ones slip right past you unnoticed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I don't see a conflict here but I'm happy to explain if you elaborate on what's confusing about what I said.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nobody claimed it was a reliable source. However, the fact is that people use it to answer questions anyway - and in cases like this, I think it’s good to let people know where you got the info so they can take it with a grain of salt. The same applies to your friend Kevin, who’s just as likely to confidently spread false info as the truth.

I don't think that shaming people for using chatGPT is useful. They're not going to stop using it - they'll just not tell about it then which is worse.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

It's more of a slang word. I think it's a variation of the word "pippeli" which means the same thing.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There's nothing wrong with asking chatGPT and you should mention it as the source for your information. It's far better than the alternative where people omit this information because of online bullies.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

In Finnish "pili" means a small dick.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

How about in hopes of it enhancing an activity you're about to partake in, as it did a decade ago when your tolerances weren't sky-high yet?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

If a person climbs onto a stage to make a statement, and instead of getting on stage to make a counterpoint someone just shouts “booo” from the audience, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand that person to show their face. There’s a certain level of cowardice in simply downvoting without explaining why you disagree. There’s no option to post anonymously here, so it’s not obvious to me that voting should be anonymous either. If people upvote or downvote, they should be willing to stand behind that - and if someone asks for an explanation, you have three choices: ignore them, block them, or explain. I guess there’s also the option to simply not vote at all.

If it were up to me, I’d hide vote counts from users entirely. It’s not all bad, but I’d argue the net effect is negative. Visible votes encourages toxic behavior. When someone makes a controversial claim, you can first downvote them, then dunk on them in a reply - and now they’re being downvoted into oblivion while you get applause for your smug comment. It feels like you've won the debate when in reality, nobody’s mind changed. Heavily downvoted comments also prime readers to dislike them before they even read them, instead of approaching with a neutral mindset and then forming their own opinion - or reading further to see other perspectives. As it stands, the system mostly trains people to recognize what’s popular on a platform so they can self-censor to avoid downvotes, and feel validated for shouting down people who voice unpopular opinions.

So, if someone asks me to explain why I downvoted something, I might explain or I might not - but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable thing to ask. On the other hand, if someone makes it their personal mission to follow me around and harass me because I downvoted their comment, I think it’s unreasonable to demand the system be changed just so I don’t have to deal with it. There’s already a solution for that: blocking them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

His name is Marshall Mae Rogan and he has almost 900K followers on Instagram.

view more: ‹ prev next ›