FaceDeer

I have presupposed nothing.

You wrote:

The lung capacity of smokers is deficient, yes? Is the mere fact offensive? Should we just not talk about how someone struggling to breathe as they walk up stairs is the direct result of their smoking?

By using this analogy for the “brain rot” you claim comes from AI use, you are presupposing that it actually happens. You’re putting as much confidence in that as there is in the well-established but completely unrelated effect of smoking on lung capacity.

Ultimately, what this whole exchange boils down to:

OP: How do I tell people I don’t use AI without insulting them?

You: Tell them I think they’re stupid.

How useful.

It’s not a random fallacy, it’s the one you’re engaging in. Look it up. Your analogy presupposes an answer to the question that is actually at hand. It’s the classic “have you stopped beating your wife” situation.

This is literally begging the question.

What would the inoffensive way of phrasing it be?

…and then you proceed to spend the next two paragraphs continuing to rant about how mentally deficient you think AI users are.

Not that, for starters.

They’ve lost so much of their brains to AI, that even valid criticism of AI feel like personal insults to them.

More likely they feel insulted by people saying how “brain-rotted” they are.

This is the first time I’ve encountered the term and I understood it immediately.

I haven’t tested it, but I saw an article a little while back that you can add “don’t use emdashes” to ChatGPT’s custom instructions and it’ll leave them out from the beginning.

It’s kind of ridiculous that a perfectly ordinary punctuation mark has been given such stigma, but whatever, it’s an easy fix.

The “environmental destruction” angle is likely to cause trouble because it’s objectively debatable, and often presented in overblown or deceptive ways.

Except that is also a subjective and emotionally-charged argument.

and also alarming enough for them to take action.

Is this really an intent to explain in good faith? Sounds like you’re trying to manipulate their opinion and actions rather than simply explaining yourself.

If someone was to tell me that they simply don’t want to use generative AI, that they prefer to do writing or drawing by hand and don’t want suggestions about how to use various AI tools for it, then I just shrug and say “okay, suit yourself.”

How did you meet him?

Depends how well you fight against the prospect.

Whether it’s a “legitimate complaint” is the community-dependent thing, I guess. Check the rules of the communities they’re posting in. The instance being used by the bot account may also have rules about how people can use accounts there, I’m not sure how to report an account to their home instance but that seems like the sort of thing that should exist.

What do you mean, “should they be allowed to report?” The report button works regardless of what kind of account you’re reporting.

If you mean “should the accounts be allowed”, then that’s entirely up to the communities and the instances involved. Some may be fine with them, others might not, it’s not anything that can be decided globally.

If you’re in a community that’s allowing accounts you don’t want to see then block the account.

The fact that people were so psychologically subjugated to having to work in exchange for livelihood that when the prospect came along to not need that any more they fought against it.

Stocks.

There is. luarocks is basically the “pip” equivalent for lua, it installs packages (called “rocks”) and manages dependencies. These packages can extend lua with all sorts of practical capabilities.

That said, it’s a rare thing when a single argument is able to shift a person’s opinion. Opinions form over time and change over time, nobody ever reads just one manifesto and goes “oh, I guess I’m a communist now.”

Yeah, everything OP says about arguing with conservatives applies to arguing with any other group with entrenched views. The problem is that each of those groups will insist that their own views aren’t “entrenched”, they’re just reasonable.

Social media is largely designed to group people together into like-minded communities, so you find this everywhere. Here in the Fediverse too, though of course we here in the Fediverse will insist that contrary to all those other social media platforms we’re open and diverse and not susceptible to that sort of thing.

Personally, I’ve found that one can overcome the sense of futility by reframing the debate. When I debate with someone online it’s not to change their views, because that’s basically impossible (it rarely happens but I don’t count on it). Instead, the point of debate is to try to win over the casual onlookers who aren’t participating directly. They aren’t likely to have as much of a dog in the fight and so are more amenable to having those “huh, I hadn’t thought of it that way” reactions.

The one nice thing about the Fediverse over Reddit in this regard, IMO, is the fact that we can see both the upvote and downvote count. So even if a comment of mine is being hammered with 93 downvotes I can still see that there were 18 upvotes and think to myself “at least a few people got what I was saying here.”

Does that include the magnetic fields of Earth and the Sun? There’d be significant knock-on effects from that potentially causing severe long-term consequences for life.