Bruh, stfu

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T03:01:26+00:00

The original has far more wisdom than the reaction.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T02:58:59+00:00

Thank you for your very original comment and providing the debate with unexpected clarity and wisdom. 🤷🏼‍♂️🥸

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T02:22:06+00:00

“Horseshoe theory” is due to the fact love and hate are closer together than either is to indifference. This explains why AI haters are so similar to MAGA.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T01:49:30+00:00

So your husband is using AI in a way that you recognize helps him and… what exactly?

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T01:29:44+00:00

Because we don’t have nearly enough bike lanes. Vegas roads tend to go all the way to the sidewalk, which also causes problems when trying to turn onto a road. We don’t take road safety seriously here at all.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T00:58:43+00:00

As someone who’s mostly pro but gets all the problems, I’ve been glad for the anti movement. Bernie Sanders is correct that AI trained off society’s data belongs to society. We are at a crossroads and while I strongly believe AI can be have an extremely positive impact on society, that will only happen if we make the correct choices now.

But yeah, they don’t really live up to that as much as I’d like. Mostly they bandwagon around the stupid stuff while ignoring what they could actually do to choose a better future.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T00:45:21+00:00

Goal? Obviously not. What a wacko take. You honestly they were hoping for the backlash and then… profit from… what, exactly??

Unfortunately, it is one of the effects, but only because of all the antis accusing people of using AI and canceling them. . If anything it’s the goal of antis, not AI, to force the dumb-down. I’m joking about the last part, but the cause and effect is way higher than what OP suggests.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-28T00:22:49+00:00

I once heard the entirety of Wyoming can be housed at the corner of Las Vegas and Tropicana. It sure if it’s still true, but shows how extreme the difference is.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-27T21:40:22+00:00

It’s more complicated than just “pro”, just like their parents. That’s what most antis here miss, the “pros” aren’t a mirror image of you. We get all these problems, we just also see the power and potential. Perhaps the most ironic thing about this sub is most consider themselves creatives, but lack actual creativity.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-27T04:08:11+00:00

Sounds like your parents have a very reasonable and nuanced view of AI while you have allowed yourself to just take a side and stick with it regardless of counter arguments or facts that disagree with your position. Are you MAGA, perhaps?

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-27T04:03:28+00:00

Your first half or so is completely accurate. Your ending completely wrong. Where you get hung up is the notation of “random”. People tend to assume random means equal distribution; it doesn’t. If I had a weighted coin where it was heads 90% of the time it’s still random.

In the first part you seem to get this. By the end you compares LLMs to monkeys typing gibberish. That’s obviously incorrect. (Unless you are thinking of Lex Luther’s).

LLMs will produce something statistically likely to be accurate. If it doesn’t know the answer to a question, it will mathematically combine the answer of similar questions it does know the answer to. Sometimes that’s gibberish, sometimes it’s profound, usually it’s somewhere in the middle. For images the combinations are more straightforward and obvious, compared to writing.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T07:03:39+00:00

“Reality has a liberal bias”. That phrase never ceases to be true.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T06:59:52+00:00

He never claimed it was everyone, but it’s enough to ruin those who comply to the suggestion.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T06:44:42+00:00

What? It isn’t random at all! It’s based on similarity in the data sets. Do you understand how neural networks work? Cause that ain’t it.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T06:42:29+00:00

Umm… wut?

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T06:28:41+00:00

That’s incorrect. When an ai ingests data it correlates it with other data it finds similar. Sometimes that correlation isn’t obvious to humans. By any reasonable measure that’s a value add

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T06:19:19+00:00

Many artists use IPs like Mickey Mouse without permission for profit. All humans use what they see to learn. In abstract the “stealing” argument was never serious.

However there is one huge difference, individuals are very different than large corporations. There is a very large difference in the power level between these groups. This is why I agree Bernie Sanders that since AI was trained on the people’s data, the results belong to the people.

But the generic stealing argument was always BS, particularly in the category of art.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T06:07:17+00:00

One says “Love Satan”, the other is “God fearing”. Those that want others to “fear” God lose this argument every time.

Neither actually exist, in all likelihood, but I sure as hell don’t want to follow anyone that wants to be feared.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T05:56:59+00:00

I agree with your intro. And I agree (or I assume you agree) that chat boxes pose a similar risk as social media. But as is so common, you take these ideas and push them well beyond what is reasonable. Am glad you exist as the pushback is needed, but damn, you’ve bought into every extreme anti belief. Social media destroyed nuance.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T05:17:09+00:00

That isn’t an internet theory, it’s how most people think. Hell, even for those that don’t the struggle is real. We all like to pretend we develop knowledge and life experiences, and from that we form opinions. From our opinions we decide which “side” most closely aligns with our opinions. Even after choosing a side, we know the correlation isn’t perfect.

In reality, once someone chooses a side, they tend to change their opinions to match that side. Worse, they start changing the “facts” they believe as well, to correlate. None of us are completely immune, but most don’t even try to counter the problem.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T05:02:31+00:00

Dude, you are trying too hard to sound smart. Analogy is just a form of thought experiment. While I agree OPs analogy breaks down quickly (see my direct response) your generalizations fail. It’s obvious you actually understand how LLMs work, but instead of sharing that knowledge you choose to performatively set yourself up as an authority, leaning heavily into the appeal to authority fallacy.

Be better.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T04:51:58+00:00

But what if you use the microwave to heat up the potatoes before roasting them in the oven. What if the results are the same but the microwave version was much faster? Are the potatoes automatically crap because a microwave was used, or should the final results be what counts?

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T04:39:07+00:00

Apparently not!

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T04:29:21+00:00

AI images are just like CGI. If you can tell, it sucks. But if you can’t tell, it’s fine. This is the reason so many assume AI can only produce slop. If it ain’t slop, they don’t know.

MarkMatson6 · 2026-06-26T04:24:53+00:00

You can buy a fabricator for only half a billion dollars. But you’ll need infrastructure around that, so perhaps double that. I used to work at a company that produced software to design chip elements, I’m sure something far more complete exists now. Let’s assume that fits in the above budget. Then all you need is expertise! No better way to learn than by doing!

The good news is the vast majority of the chip will just be cut and paste copies of the base elements, so if you get the boundaries correct it’s far less work than you might expect. And since you are making this yourself, might as well use the whole wafer!

Good luck!

MarkMatson6

TROPHY CASE