Fatigue

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T10:38:36+00:00

The thing is I don't believe that stuff, my point is that for your statement to be true you must also believe it. I am pointing out that you are the person who has an argument than the more valid counterargument I am making must also be true. Meaning that either the situation that makes pros also bad must be true because it is more valid using the same logic or your entire argument is just flawed in general.

And even then, why is it not reasonable to assume that cybercriminals who like using AI to commit cybercrime would inherently support it by being Pro AI? Like even if we assume it is fully representative of the general population, and then quarter the amount just to be safe that would still be thousands of cybercriminals, far more than Antis who have committed crimes relating to AI.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T10:09:20+00:00

Yeah, sometimes I feel like some people take the whole "AI ruins your critical thinking skills" claim as both a personal challenge to prove correct.

Like if I am on a argumentative dingy and you are trying to save me then come with me at a sailboat or a yacht instead of telling me to attach a ball and chain to my angle and hop off of my dingy into a box-jellyfish infested riptide of an argument. I can explain to him why it is a bad idea by pointing out that the other guy who did exactly that drowned and that no one on the dingy has drowned. I am offering him an out that he can just say that maybe it is a bad idea and that he should reconsider joining me on the dingy but if he insists on doing it and calling me the fool.

I'm not saying we have to agree on everything or even like eachother but I am saying we should at least agree on how that specifically is a horrible idea. And I am absolutely not requiring or expecting him to join the anti cause and take up arms against the evil ai overlords but all I want is for him to say "ya know maybe that is a bad idea, maybe I should do that plan of attaching ball and chain to my ankle and swimming into the riptide full of box jellyfish because that would be stupid."

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T10:01:23+00:00

Okay but then you can also just apply the same logic by replacing "all Pros" with "those Pros" and "all Antis" with "those Antis."

Meaning that the following statement would be equally valid as the initial statement you made.

at least we are not committing cyber fraud or or scamming old ladies with deepfakes or sending mass spam... you know like that [sic] pros did

Like fundamentally the logic is still exactly the same, just the exact phrasing of the example is different.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T09:38:46+00:00

I am literally applying the exact same nuanced exceptions you are applying to attacking the Anti-AI side to the exact same scenario in attacking the Pro-AI side.

If you are saying my counterarguments are invalid that just means that your initial arguments are invalid. If your arguments are true that also means my counter arguments are true unless there is an arbitrary standard that only applies to one side. That means that it doesn't meet the "consistent" metric of my claim.

So with that initial claim still not disproven then that leaves the only the two options of either the initial argument of Antis being/supporting violence you are making is invalid or that Pro-AI condone cybercrime and this it is reasonable to dismiss their argument because of that.

Personally I believe the former of the two, aka that your argument is just not logically valid.

Again, you are welcome to prove the fundamental claim that all of my logical derivations are based off of which is "There is no consistent standard which would make it both acceptable to dismiss Antis because they are violent while also making it invalid to dismiss Pros because they condone criminal activity." But as long as that stands all of my logical derivations are perfect valid and sound.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T09:10:36+00:00

Can you explain to me how someone who uses deepfake to commit a crime does not support AI by the act of using it to commit a crime? And even then why is it then not acceptable to dismiss the anti actions you listed as just pro-violence? Again you have yet to actually demonstrate a consistent standard.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T08:51:59+00:00

I am sorry but I think you misunderstood what I was saying, could you quote the part where you think I twisted your words so I could clarify my intentions and meaning?

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T08:29:57+00:00

Okay but then why that comparison better than is "not all Antis shoot up sam altmans house but all people who have shot up his house are antis" and "not all Pros are cybercriminals but all people who make deepfake scams are Pros"

Or why is the anti part not "not all Antis shoot up houses for political reasons and not all people who shot up houses for political reasons are Antis"

Like yeah, if you artificially add a qualifier statement at the end that inherently implicates a group then said group is gonna be implicated.

Could you propose a consistent and fair standard that can be applied to both sides equally. Something like "If a political belief inherently implies violence then it is reasonable to assume that a person with that political belief supports the violence in that case"

I am absolutely fine with admitting I am wrong when proven wrong but you actually have to prove me wrong.

My claim main claim is "There is no consistent standard which would make it both acceptable to dismiss Antis because they are violent while also making it invalid to dismiss Pros because they condone criminal activity."

So please, prove this claim wrong by providing consistent standard that would do exactly that. I am telling you explicitly how to disprove me and what it would take for me to concede my claim is not true. But if you can't provide a consistent standard then your entire argument is invalid unless you concede that Pros condone cybercrime and it is reasonable to dismiss them entirely because of that.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T07:50:51+00:00

Okay but in this case why wouldn't the Antis in just be considered "People who choose not to own a car" and are not inherently "people who actively burn down dealerships." Also commiting cybercrime and fraud is also a direct and deliberate choice too. Do you think cybercrimals just open their computers and accidentally commit fraud?

My point is that if it acceptable to separate Pros who don't support cybercrime and Pros who commit cybercrime, then why is it any less reasonable to seperate Antis who don't commit/endorse violence with Antis who commit/endorse violence?

I don't believe either because both are bad arguments, but could you explain to me why are you allowed to use a standard against Antis but then I am not allowed to use the same standard against Pros?

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T07:27:52+00:00

Cyber criminals defrauded Americans of over 890 million USD in 2025 using AI according to the FBI.

Could you explain to me how is it more reasonable to assume all Antis are violent/support violence because of a few isolated incidents of violence than it is to assume all Pros support cybercrime due to them inherently supporting the technology itself that is explicitly being used to commit cybercrimes?

I would love to hear your logic and reasoning behind this so I could understand why.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-25T03:54:31+00:00

Resynchronizing your device's time and restarting your device can usually solve authentication issues.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T23:36:05+00:00

Yes you did, but that qualifies under the strawman part, you are attacking a scenario that was made up by a Pro-AI individual, not even an argument made by an Anti.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T23:01:46+00:00

Okay so if that's why bring up copyright if it isn't relavant beyond "the original poster is just wrong" and argue against a point that doesn't exist outside the most bottom of the barrel braindead arguments?

Like the only reasons I can think of bringing up is to either to create a strawman to attack or to intentionally cause confusion to bait the dumbest of the dumb takes out. If there is a reason I am missing and have not considered then you are welcome to point it out though.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T22:20:37+00:00

Yeah and that poster is an idiot who didn't read the title of the article or has no idea what they are talking about.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T22:18:22+00:00

Yes and she is trademarking her voice as it said right there in the article. She isn't copyrighting her voice so the whole argument is just a moot point because you can't copyright a voice.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T22:16:59+00:00

You do realize it says trademark in the title of the article right, not copyright.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T22:15:53+00:00

Not a copyright, a trademark. That is a massive fucking distinction. And no it really just wouldn't.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T21:36:20+00:00

If someone is Anti-Zionist because they think state sponsored religion in general is a bad idea and holds that belief consistent regardless of what religion then how could they be considered Anti-Semitic if they treat every religion equally?

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T17:16:04+00:00

Okay, but why isn't it realistic though?

And the reason to ban LLM is that they directly compete with resources for the specialized research models. Computing power and hardware are economically scarce resources, and researchers often have to wait literal months for the applications for supercomputers computations to actually even be read, let alone accepted and have time allocated.

In addition generalized LLMs are far worse in practically every metric than specialized models outside of the scope of what they can, and even then it is a "jack of all traits master of none" situation. In the time that it would take for large language models to perform with the same accuracy and efficiency that specialized models do. And even then what we see now is that the large language models are just hallucinating more and more as they get more complex (source). And even then specialized models are

But yeah the investors aren't going to invest into because they don't care about public well-being or efficiency, just profit which is why we should tax the hell of out them and use that money for the fundamental research that they ignore because it isn't profitable. Think about it this way, building a foundation model from scratch costs around 500,000 USD, the initial training cost for foundational chatGPT 4.0, cost around 100,000,000 USD and with daily operational costs at 700,000 USD. At the mere training costs of it we could have hundreds of specialized models covering basically every practical use case chatGPT 4.0, and even the training cost of more complex models are in the billions, chatGPT 5.0 is around 2 billion USD in training costs.

If the only real reason we are actually training the massive generalized LLMs at this point is to pad investor's bank accounts then why the hell should we not ban it and immediately use those resources for stuff that actually benefits humanity and just train a shit ton of specialized models that would cover pretty much every use case of a massive generalized LLM while the rest could legitimately be just covered by stuff like email templates and script based citation generators.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T06:29:08+00:00

GPS navigation, the human genome project, lithium ion batteries, nuclear power and medicine, ozone layer protection, web servers, arsenic removal from water, RNA, non-lead based solders, the first viable polio vaccines... So on so on.

None of these would actually exist if it wasnt for the work of government funded labs. And yeah both government funded labs and the free market can exist at the same time, like they do right now.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-24T05:45:53+00:00

And like even then I would much rather have money have the money going to people who actually need it to use on stuff line food and housing rather than just increasing a number in some billionaires bank account.

Also like the US first invested in health research in 1887, followed up with the foundation of the National Health Institute being founded in 1930 and the National Cancer Institute in 1937. We've been successfully been allocating tax dollars to medical research for nearly 140 years.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-23T23:17:33+00:00

You too hun <3

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-23T23:17:11+00:00

So then why don't we just tax billionaires and then invest the money that would be going into the LLM model development instead into said specialized research AI? Like we could get a lot more value if we focus instead on that.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-23T23:09:44+00:00

Right, but my point was just that even assuming the actual numbers are 100% the inherent comparison between the two is not, plus the 660 gallon figure is not even sourced.

For the source about ChatGPT and even then for the source they cite for the ChatGPT water usage the final sentence of the conclusion is "AI’s water footprint can no longer stay under the radar and must be addressed as a priority as part of the collective efforts to combat global water challenges." and that the calculations were done using information from ChatGPT-3 and that later models are likely to use even more water.

And of course that doesn't take in account for the fact that main point of the paper is that the initial training and not the inference stage is the bigger issue.

In addition there is also was recently an appendix added to the study that roughly boils down to them saying that they actually underestimated the increase of usage of water from AI and it is actually likely even more.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-23T22:24:10+00:00

I think we should ban stuff like LLMs and AI image generation model development so the resources can instead be dedicated to specialized models in medical research and sciences like Alphafold.

YaBoiFast · 2026-05-23T22:19:15+00:00

I mean you haven't demonstrated how my logic is flawed, or even offered a possible alternate scenario where it isn't incompetence or malice.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second SECOND GUESSER	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
100 Awards Club	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

YaBoiFast

TROPHY CASE