Hubert FiguièreApparently it's rude to reject AI slop.
You know what's rude? To expect people to read / review your AI slop.
Christopher Neitzert@hub No, it's rude to denigrate another's efforts, even if it was to prompt something, it is effort.
What also is rude is to have an oversized emotional reaction to a tool.
Good luck with that emotional regulation thing, son.
Claudius@xenophile @hub So… If someone comes and smears feces all over your apartment, you gotta commend them for the effort?
Nope.
@claudius Define feces. Specifically: what measurable property makes an output worthless? Scraped training data, license violation, no provenance, no human input? Name the test. Then run mine against it: C2PA provenance, neural watermark, local inference, zero-violation FOSS audit, published SBOM. Either it fails a criterion you can name, or the analogy was never an argument. Your move. github.com/rAIdio-bot/sbom
@xenophile yeah, you know, I don't find debating you to be good use of my time. Have a great day. If you want, you can think of this as "you winning the argument". I do not really care what you, specifically, think.
@claudius You opened with a feces analogy and closed by declaring you don't care.
Between those two you were asked for one falsifiable criterion and produced nothing. Nobody "wins" when -YOU- debate this disingenuously.
Be honest, the disinterest is a feint, because you've got nothing to argue on.
The SBOM stays up.
@xenophile That sounds very interesting, please continue.
@claudius Reverting to a 1960s ELIZA chatbot script because your brain hit a 404 is peak irony for someone who hates AI.
Let me know if you ever find that falsifiable criterion.
@xenophile I think you're on to something! Great idea!
@xenophile please appreciate my effort.
@claudius Effort noted. Still not a criterion. ✅ Go watch some https://doomscroll.fm and have the day you want to have instead of this.
