4 ms·

Do you see how you've chosen to try to twist what I've said instead of honestly engaging with it?

jfengel 1y ago
That was what it sounded like to me, too. I see another comment express the same. I trust that wasn't what was intended but I'm not entirely sure what you did intend. So it's a little hard to engage with it.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  Is there any single sentence in my comment that you think is factually incorrect as written? And do you not see that it's a common form of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that a "there exists" statement is a "for all" statement, and now three people have tried to do this without adding anything at all to the discussion?
  - MBCook 1y ago
    You said people underestimate the amount of astroturfing. Clearly implying there is more than people think. You seemed to imply there was a small amount of genuine anti-AI posting. You then said the posts came in identifiable waves followed by explaining how people organize on discord to post such things. All of that added up sounds to me like you are implying the vast majority of anti-AI sentiment is organized astroturfing. Yeah you never said every single one, I generalized on that front. You say that’s not what you meant. Sorry, that was how I read your post. It sounded to me like a blatant dismissal of all critiques as fake or insincere.
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      People tend to think everything is organic. Whereas in reality there are forums and channels dedicated to raiding parties. And that's just the human participants, not including any bot activity or troll farm activity that's coordinated off of public forums. That does not mean that all content is inorganic. In any culture war or wedge issue or agitprop campaign you seed with influencers and rely on amplification by ordinary people. But the influencers frame the debate, decide what the priorities are, etc. It takes time and money to coordinate everyone's opinion on something. The natural tendency is toward entropy and fighting against that requires resources. So when large numbers of people believe the same thing and repeat the same lines that's a candidate for inorganic content. You can then investigate that further and decide whether it's a conlincidence or not. Sometimes there's just a trend that catches on. But people also underestimate how much work and coordination goes into making something catch on. This is a big part of why influencers and advertisers try to avoid the impression that they are paid to pretend to like something and why there are regulations requiring that you disclose paid content. People are easily fooled into thinking it's all just happening naturally and serendipitously.
  - hckrfucrs 1y ago
    > Is there any single sentence in my comment that you think is factually incorrect as written? I'll bite. > You can track the small number of anti-AI sentiments that crop up here and elsewhere. You say you can track. So, show me this "tracking".
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      Just copy the arguments you see a lot into a spreadsheet and track them. There are fewer than 10 that come up repeatedly it's not hard to do. Ones I see on HN frequently are the "slop" critique, the claim that AI produces inferior content, and the claim that customers hate it and it's being forced on them. These all go back at least to the luddite movement and have been used in every anti-tech movement I've looked into. I'm sure you're capable of tracking the other talking points. There are other ones that don't go back to the luddites but which are nonsensical, like the critique that LLMs are statistical.

That was what it sounded like to me, too. I see another comment express the same. I trust that wasn't what was intended but I'm not entirely sure what you did intend. So it's a little hard to engage with it.

ants_everywhere 1y ago
Is there any single sentence in my comment that you think is factually incorrect as written? And do you not see that it's a common form of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that a "there exists" statement is a "for all" statement, and now three people have tried to do this without adding anything at all to the discussion?
- MBCook 1y ago
  You said people underestimate the amount of astroturfing. Clearly implying there is more than people think. You seemed to imply there was a small amount of genuine anti-AI posting. You then said the posts came in identifiable waves followed by explaining how people organize on discord to post such things. All of that added up sounds to me like you are implying the vast majority of anti-AI sentiment is organized astroturfing. Yeah you never said every single one, I generalized on that front. You say that’s not what you meant. Sorry, that was how I read your post. It sounded to me like a blatant dismissal of all critiques as fake or insincere.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    People tend to think everything is organic. Whereas in reality there are forums and channels dedicated to raiding parties. And that's just the human participants, not including any bot activity or troll farm activity that's coordinated off of public forums. That does not mean that all content is inorganic. In any culture war or wedge issue or agitprop campaign you seed with influencers and rely on amplification by ordinary people. But the influencers frame the debate, decide what the priorities are, etc. It takes time and money to coordinate everyone's opinion on something. The natural tendency is toward entropy and fighting against that requires resources. So when large numbers of people believe the same thing and repeat the same lines that's a candidate for inorganic content. You can then investigate that further and decide whether it's a conlincidence or not. Sometimes there's just a trend that catches on. But people also underestimate how much work and coordination goes into making something catch on. This is a big part of why influencers and advertisers try to avoid the impression that they are paid to pretend to like something and why there are regulations requiring that you disclose paid content. People are easily fooled into thinking it's all just happening naturally and serendipitously.
- hckrfucrs 1y ago
  > Is there any single sentence in my comment that you think is factually incorrect as written? I'll bite. > You can track the small number of anti-AI sentiments that crop up here and elsewhere. You say you can track. So, show me this "tracking".
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    Just copy the arguments you see a lot into a spreadsheet and track them. There are fewer than 10 that come up repeatedly it's not hard to do. Ones I see on HN frequently are the "slop" critique, the claim that AI produces inferior content, and the claim that customers hate it and it's being forced on them. These all go back at least to the luddite movement and have been used in every anti-tech movement I've looked into. I'm sure you're capable of tracking the other talking points. There are other ones that don't go back to the luddites but which are nonsensical, like the critique that LLMs are statistical.