Clinton's avoiding deposition

[durangodawood]

I suppose you could, as long as you don't mind basically admitting "I don't like quickly retrievable, cited information that my opponents can use in debates, because that challenges my ability to beat them in 'the court of public opinion' based on factoid memorization exercises and correcting their grammar"

...not to mention, just in terms of a personal preservation strategy, those who reject AI as a valid tool will likely be unemployed in a few years.

Its not so much the facts themselves as the capacity to frame them in your own words - which is a measure of whether youve vetted and understood them

Absent that, we may as well just have AIs fight it out here while we step back and watch tiktoks or take a nap.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its not so much the facts themselves as the capacity to frame them in your own words- which is a measure of whether youve vetted and understood them

Absent that, we may as well just have AIs fight it out here while we watch tiktoks or take a nap.

Framing in ones own words and being able to articulate things in a certain "convincing" style are/were the bread & butter of the likes of Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and the late Charlie Kirk.

I would presume that you'd agree that just because they all can "beat" a random 22 year old college liberal in a debate, that doesn't mean they actually have the right answer, correct?

AI levels that playing field. (Leveling the playing field is a liberal virtue, is it not?)

If I had to debate Ben Shapiro on the topic of the Gaza conflict in a public setting, strictly based on the facts that we both had committed to memory and could rattle off quickly, he'd own me. (A - Because he has something of an identic memory, and B - because he has more practice at public speaking in front of large crowds -- less nervous, able to project confidence, etc...)

If he and I had a text-based debate where I could leverage AI as a tool for retrieving valid, cited information, I can beat him, because on the Gaza conflict topic, the actual facts are on my side.

That should really be the goal of any debate that's substantive (and not purely performative), right? Finding the right answer.

 

[NxNW]

Clinton is a pervert to me. But is he a child rapists is the question. As for Trump, he has a big list of sexual assaults. Even a teenager tried to justice. But was so badly harassed. That she dropped the charges.

I don't think Bill Clinton has assaulted anyone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think Bill Clinton has assaulted anyone.

Paula Jones accuses Bill Clinton of sexual harassment | May 6, 1994 | HISTORY

Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state clerk, files suit against President Bill Clinton in the federal court in Little ...

www.history.com

You should probably let go of that "anyone on my side can't be capable of bad things" mentality...and sooner rather than later if you want your political faction to have a future.

We're in the internet age and the social media age, where it's getting a lot harder for people in power to cover certain things up via weakly attempted plausible deniability ploys.

And I'm saying this as constructive criticism...you've been on here several times denying the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop (and even denying the laptop's existence) even after every publication (even left-leaning publications) had to bite the bullet and concede that it was legit.

If there's a lesson to be learned, it's this... you need to make peace with the idea that your criticisms of Trump aren't contingent on pretending that every Democrat is squeaky clean.

We can all bicker about "who's worse", but the reality is that powerful men prey on vulnerable women, it's been going on since I was born, and will still probably be going on after I'm dead.

Trying to pretend that members of one party have a monopoly on that abhorrent behavior is just absurd.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I don't think Bill Clinton has assaulted anyone.

Sexually Harassed . I don't remember if he was accused of rape.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I suppose you could, as long as you don't mind basically admitting "I don't like quickly retrievable, cited information that my opponents can use in debates, because that challenges my ability to beat them in 'the court of public opinion' based on factoid memorization exercises and correcting their grammar"

What? It's not "cited". AI "output" is filled with errors. If I wanted to debate a chat bot I would log on to one of those sites. (wherever it is they are)

...not to mention, just in terms of a personal preservation strategy, those who reject AI as a valid tool will likely be unemployed in a few years.

lol. Anyway, we can hope the AI generated economic crash that is coming soon (bubbles will pop) doesn't hit too hard. Pray to your favorite god or chat bot.

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't think Bill Clinton has assaulted anyone.

Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and a dozen other women disagree

 

[durangodawood]

Framing in ones own words and being able to articulate things in a certain "convincing" style are/were the bread & butter of the likes of Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and the late Charlie Kirk.

I would presume that you'd agree that just because they all can "beat" a random 22 year old college liberal in a debate, that doesn't mean they actually have the right answer, correct?

AI levels that playing field. (Leveling the playing field is a liberal virtue, is it not?)

You arent even on the playing field when you just do an AI dump. Thats more like sending in an autonomous drone you bought off the shelf.

As for public intellectuals (real or pretend), I find zero inherent value in leveling the playing field by any other method than study and practice. It should be human mind vs human mind. Study could well include AI help. But on "the playing field" I want a sense you are there, and not some surrogate whos methods you may not even grasp.

If I had to debate Ben Shapiro on the topic of the Gaza conflict in a public setting, strictly based on the facts that we both had committed to memory and could rattle off quickly, he'd own me. (A - Because he has something of an identic memory, and B - because he has more practice at public speaking in front of large crowds -- less nervous, able to project confidence, etc...)

If he and I had a text-based debate where I could leverage AI as a tool for retrieving valid, cited information, I can beat him, because on the Gaza conflict topic, the actual facts are on my side.

That should really be the goal of any debate that's substantive (and not purely performative), right? Finding the right answer.

Im fine with you using AI as a study tool to direct you to various sources you can examine and assimilate.

But just a dump of AI generated text has no interest for me. Theres no sense Im arguing with you there.

 

[BPPLEE]

You arent even on the playing field when you just do an AI dump. Thats more like sending in an autonomous drone you bought off the shelf.

As for public intellectuals (real or pretend), I find zero inherent value in leveling the playing field by any other method than study and practice. It should be human mind vs human mind. Study could well include AI help. But on "the playing field" I want a sense you are there, and not some surrogate whos methods you may not even grasp.


Im fine with you using AI as a study tool to direct you to various sources you can examine and assimilate.

But just a dump of AI generated text has no interest for me. Theres no sense Im arguing with you there.

Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?
Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given

 

[durangodawood]

Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?
Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given

Whos this "AI". Where did it get it facts from? Whos agenda does it serve, if any?

You can ask similar questions of journalists and get answers one way or anther. Not so with AI "stuff" as typically presented. Its just pure assertion pulled out of..... where exactly?

 

[rambot]

Trying to pretend that members of one party have a monopoly on that abhorrent behavior is just absurd.

Calm your jets. He was referring to one person not a party.

 

[rambot]

Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?

Because you don't know what source the AI got it from. How do you know hte AI source is good?

This should be basic stuff here.

Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given

Yes. Because. source is given.

AI is not a source. AI is like a slave that finds you the information that it wants on the topic you ask it to. But it doesn't tell you where it found it all. So. The slave is not the source; where the slave gets it; that's the source.

It should not be a hidden trinket of knowledge to understand that knowing the source of information is going to add legitimacy to a piece of information.