61–70 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is paying for a product instead of being the product a bad thing?
That view is overly simplistic. People find real utility in ad-supported tools and apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ad-hominem (literally: "to the person") requires a person on the other side of the argument. This wasn't made or written by a person, thus ad-hominem does not apply.
Thats a bit pedantic. Youre still arguing against an entity rather than addressing the argument. If you prompted an LLM to make a PSA that people should brush their teeth, is it a fair to argue that brushing your teeth is bad because an LLM made the argument?
A literal form of "to the machine”: none of the rights that a person has.
Example usage:
“That’s not a rebuttal; it’s an argumentum ad machinam -- you’re rejecting it just because AI wrote it.”
What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.
Ad-hominem (literally: "to the person") requires a person on the other side of the argument. This wasn't made or written by a person, thus ad-hominem does not apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack. When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.
Made me coin a term. Ad hominllm : the dismissal of a work or an argument because an LLM was, or may have been, used in its construction or editing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats a bit pedantic. Youre still arguing against an entity rather than addressing the argument. If you prompted an LLM to make a PSA that people should brush their teeth, is it a fair to argue that brushing your teeth is bad because an LLM made the argument?
Let's call it "Ad machinam". A literal form of "to the machine”: none of the rights that a person has. Example usage: “That’s not a rebuttal; it’s an argumentum ad machinam -- you’re rejecting it just because AI wrote it.”
So it's a kind of mechanical recombination of ideas.
What percentage of this is lawslop? https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement. I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space. 100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.
It all makes sense, I don't care if it's LLM-generated or not. I'm fine with 100% LLM-written bill if it protects me from Flock et al.
Biblical times.
The bill bans making access to a service contingent on consent. This would kill Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram and basically every other ad supported service. Making subscriptions the only consumer business model would be bad imo.
Say it loud so the kids in the back can here:
- IF IT IS FREE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT -
But I also don’t want to step on the EFF’s toes. They’ve been doing good work on this area for decades and I’d prefer we work with them on policy details.
Here’s a whitepaper on their policy positions: https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-onli...