4 ms·

They may not be wrong with their primary point, but they neglected to provide an argument to support it. Instead of bothering to argue, they just provide a lita

They may not be wrong with their primary point, but they neglected to provide an argument to support it. Instead of bothering to argue, they just provide a litany of freeze peach dog whistles. Anyone who doubts that ideology's value would rather have an actual argument laid out.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
Perhaps, but that wasn’t the criticism laid out by the GP. In fact they didn’t really have an argument at all, they only tried to discredit the author as “some guy” and his opinion as a “hot take”. Essentially a pseudo-ad hominem to sidestep the argument entirely.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  Sorry I should have said "some guy with no expertise writes blog post to claim he has more expertise than literal experts".
  - samj 2y ago
    The "co-design" process is literally the "Do Your Own Research" of technical standards (https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4 https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4): "We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process." Not that they're practicing what they preach anyway - there's only one voice that matters and that's the OSI's Executive Director (https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653/14 https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consens...): "We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."
    - rettichschnidi 2y ago
      Your 2nd link does not lead to a page where I could find the sentence "We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Ah yes, because bringing in experts who have allegiances to the very same organizations you wish to legislate has worked amazingly so far. And again, you’re utterly failing to provide an actual argument that properly references anything within the article. Instead you continue to sidestep the issue by attacking his credibility and not his points. Perhaps that’s because you don’t have a proper refutation that the OSI are woefully incompetent and are not suited to be in charge of the future of OS AI?
  - bullshitdetect 2y ago
    Not only does he lack the expertise, he's building an AI using llama and marketing it as "Open Source" The guy has an interest in the definition failing. If it doesn't he won't be able to market his AI as Open Source.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

Perhaps, but that wasn’t the criticism laid out by the GP. In fact they didn’t really have an argument at all, they only tried to discredit the author as “some guy” and his opinion as a “hot take”. Essentially a pseudo-ad hominem to sidestep the argument entirely.

LtWorf 2y ago
Sorry I should have said "some guy with no expertise writes blog post to claim he has more expertise than literal experts".
- samj 2y ago
  The "co-design" process is literally the "Do Your Own Research" of technical standards (https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4 https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4): "We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process." Not that they're practicing what they preach anyway - there's only one voice that matters and that's the OSI's Executive Director (https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653/14 https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consens...): "We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."
  - rettichschnidi 2y ago
    Your 2nd link does not lead to a page where I could find the sentence "We see the role of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Ah yes, because bringing in experts who have allegiances to the very same organizations you wish to legislate has worked amazingly so far. And again, you’re utterly failing to provide an actual argument that properly references anything within the article. Instead you continue to sidestep the issue by attacking his credibility and not his points. Perhaps that’s because you don’t have a proper refutation that the OSI are woefully incompetent and are not suited to be in charge of the future of OS AI?
- bullshitdetect 2y ago
  Not only does he lack the expertise, he's building an AI using llama and marketing it as "Open Source" The guy has an interest in the definition failing. If it doesn't he won't be able to market his AI as Open Source.