General

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

Malvineous:
To be fair, I checked out FatGTP's profile on here and DeviantArt, and she doesn't have any stories at all, AI generated or otherwise. So challenging her to write something is a bit irrelevent since writing seems like it's outside her wheelhouse.

Should I even bother voicing an opinion on the actual topic at this point, or is the thread just cooked?


I mean feel free to voice your opinion. I'm simply trolling a troll for my personal amusement.
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

FatGTP:
You all need to finally agree on what I am and which one of you is correct in your assumption. Both can't be true at the same time.


We dont, as a matter of fact.

We would need to agree on what you are, if we needed to reach consensus for some kind of decision of what to do with you. But since we aren't doing that, we dont need to agree.
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

FatGTP:
You all need to finally agree on what I am and which one of you is correct in your assumption. Both can't be true at the same time.

Morbidly A Beast:
I believe you are a AI or at the very least used AI for a large portion of your writing in this thread. What have it away was the use of erm dashes people don’t use those often


I think the hallucinatory responses ( such as "AI is material" ) are a much stronger clue.

People can use whatever dash is on their keyboard. But no human being is stupid enough to assert than AI, a software, is material. Only AI is non-sensical enough to do that.
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

FatGTP:
Every intelligent person can understand what I mean. People who play dumb don't want to understand me in order to act dominant here. Others simply really understand nothing.


You are a troll. There's nothing to understand.

Some people choose not to feed the trolls. Some choose to point them and make them dance.
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?



Munchies:
You are a troll. There's nothing to understand.

Some people choose not to feed the trolls. Some choose to point them and make them dance.

FatGTP:
Your craving for attention is your motivation, not any moral considerations. You simply enjoy playing the superior one and don’t even notice how much you yourself are becoming what you hate. Outsiders rarely bother to analyze threads completely. They only see two people squabbling. You probably haven't noticed that yet.


That implies you've ignored what people other than Munchies, have said in this thread.

Plus, Munchies has already told you she is a sadist who will troll back the trolls. You don’t need to assume her motivations, she already asserted that, and her behavior aligns with it.

At this point, for me, this is litteraly just an exercise to point out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies you make.
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?



Munchies:
You are a troll. There's nothing to understand.

Some people choose not to feed the trolls. Some choose to point them and make them dance.

FatGTP:
Your craving for attention is your motivation, not any moral considerations. You simply enjoy playing the superior one and don’t even notice how much you yourself are becoming what you hate. Outsiders rarely bother to analyze threads completely. They only see two people squabbling. You probably haven't noticed that yet.

Enas:
That implies you've ignored what people other than Munchies, have said in this thread.

Plus, Munchies has already told you she is a sadist who will troll back the trolls. You don’t need to assume her motivations, she already asserted that, and her behavior aligns with it.

At this point, for me, this is litteraly just an exercise to point out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies you make.

FatGTP:
That more suggests there's something wrong with your 'logic'.


Elaborate please, im all ears!
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?



Munchies:
You are a troll. There's nothing to understand.

Some people choose not to feed the trolls. Some choose to point them and make them dance.

FatGTP:
Your craving for attention is your motivation, not any moral considerations. You simply enjoy playing the superior one and don’t even notice how much you yourself are becoming what you hate. Outsiders rarely bother to analyze threads completely. They only see two people squabbling. You probably haven't noticed that yet.

Enas:
That implies you've ignored what people other than Munchies, have said in this thread.

Plus, Munchies has already told you she is a sadist who will troll back the trolls. You don’t need to assume her motivations, she already asserted that, and her behavior aligns with it.

At this point, for me, this is litteraly just an exercise to point out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies you make.

FatGTP:
That more suggests there's something wrong with your 'logic'.

Enas:
Elaborate please, im all ears!

FatGTP:
I would actually explain it to you if there were any chance that you truly wanted to understand me. But by now that seems out of the question.


Red herring again. I dont need to understand you in order to understand if and how my logic is faulty.
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?




Enas:
I dont need to understand you in order to understand if and how my logic is faulty.

FatGTP:
That's called a logical circularity, and that exactly illustrates where your problem lies, thanks.


By "logical circularity" you mean this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?




Enas:
By "logical circularity" you mean this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


FatGTP:
The pernicious part is that you yourself are trapped in it. Even if Wikipedia explains the mechanism to you in detail, you'll struggle to recognize what it describes within your flawed thesis. That, too, is inherent to the situation.


You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?
7 months

Ai generated content, yay or nay?



Enas:
You failed to actually answer my question. Is what is described in the page i linked, what you meant by saying "logical circularity"?

FatGTP:
Implicitly I already answered your question. Playing dumb won't help you maneuver out of the dead end you're stuck in.


I will take this as a yes just because what you said earlier sounded like it is what i linked.

So, by definition, circular reasoning requires 2 assertions. One must necesarily be a premise and the other, again must necesarily be, the conclusion. But in what i said, for which you accused me of circular reasoning, i only made one assertion, not two. That means it is definetely not circular reasoning. So this accusation falls apart.

In fact, just because it was a single assertion and not an argument to begin with, it cannot constitute any kind of logical fallacy. Assertions by themselves cannot be fallacious. All they can be is true, or false.
7 months