191
Steam updates AI disclosure form to specify that it's focused on AI-generated content that is 'consumed by players,' not efficiency tools used behind the scenes (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 9 months ago (9 children)

You should speak to others experiences because you are making the universal statement that is has literally no uses, contrary to many people stating they have, in fact, found uses for it.

So either every single person that believes they have found a novel use for it is wrong. Or you have universally decided that none of their experiences are valid in forming your opinion.

Considering I have found a use for it, that does not require it to write code, paint pictures, or tell me I'm right about everything, why is my usage invalid in nullifying your statement that "GenAI does not have any uses."

There is no ambiguity in that statement, and yet I have found use for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    You should speak to others experiences

    My brother in Christ, what did I just say? I literally cannot. I don't know anything about your experiences. They're your experiences. And I just finished explaining exactly how people's experiences are invalid because they don't understand what's happening. What do you want?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    You're contradicting yourself and not seeing it. You're universally saying it has absolutely no uses, and using your own experiences and others, as evidence. When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.

    Either other peoples experiences are valid, and you must accept that some people have found genuine uses for the technology, despite your hatred for the industry and the false marketing around it.

    Or other peoples experiences are not valid, in which case there's no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

    When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.

    Your experience is not evidence. It's an anecdote.

    in which case there’s no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.

    In a world where everyone and their fucking mother has been trying relentlessly to gaslight me into believing this for 3 fucking years, despite any and all available evidence, yes, I absolutely will not. I'm long past done entertaining the notion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Actually, that's materially incorrect. You are making the universal claim that a technology has literally no uses, and every single person that claims otherwise is either ignorant, or has been grifted.

    I am making the counter-argument that, while I agree with the overall concerns with misuse, and misrepresentation, claiming it has literally no use is objectively false.

    Anecdotal would be "I've heard people have found uses for it." Or "My cousin says it helps him do XYZ."

    I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal, that is a definitive, replicateable, counter point.

    You have decided to dismiss it, because making a universal sweeping claim inherently requires the dismissal of all counter points in order to remain intact.

    I'm sorry that you're so angry, and have convinced yourself the world is trying to gaslight you, that doesn't seem like a healthy belief. I won't be responding further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Just FYI, at this point this guy has been provided 2 links on the Pyfed codeberg repository that show AI was used in the development of PieFed and he says he won't use anything that did, so any further replies from him make him a hypocrite for using software that used AI while being developed. He's a troll/wasting your time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I figured that was probably the case when I asked what evidence might change their mind, and the question was just ignored. Still, I was mildly entertained by pointing out their logical errors, so it wasn't a complete waste of my time lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    I am making the counter-argument that

    No you're not. This claim has nothing to do with your personal experience. You are citing your personal experience as evidence. You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of, only I have provided actual evidence to back up my statements, and you haven't.

    I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal

    ...yes? That's the definition of anecdotal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent