Now if I did want to be snarky, this is the part where I'd point to the "assume good faith" part of the guidelines.
But the guidelines are clear about snark, swipes, and calling names. They are also clear about conversing curiously and being thoughtful and kind. Please just try harder to figure out ways of expressing your thoughts kindly.
Calling others' viewpoints "jokes" is pretty damn abrasive, by the way. Quite a bit less kind than anything I've said here, in my humble view. But you're entitled to your view, obviously.
so this was not meant to be an insult / ad hom?
calling anything with genai involvement slop, irrespective of their actual quality, is not intentionally negatively generalizing?
i'm not sure who are you trying to convince.
It's not an ad hominem if it actually explains why their opinion should not be presented as a universal statement, or something that others should police their language by (recalling that the comment began with the command "Stop using the word slop."). I think that's pretty obvious.
> calling anything with genai involvement slop, irrespective of their actual quality, is not intentionally negatively generalizing?
I guess, in the sense that all hyperbolic language can be interpreted as negative generalization? That doesn't mean hyperbolic language is useless.
which it didn't
so "insult" is still on the table btw? wasn't mixing the two, that was a genuine "or" operation there.
> I guess, in the sense that all hyperbolic language can be negative generalization
no, in the sense that you're laundering in your normative stance about the subject into the language you use, robbing other people of the ability to articulate themselves as normal.
meaning might be associated to words within a person, but language works by consensus. they have (at minimum!) every right to bemoan your usage of slop as you do spreading it.
explicit manipulation of others' language not okay, implicit manipulation of others' language is okay?
> That doesn't mean hyperbolic words are useless.
right, that they are not. great?
Look, how about we both stop filling up this thread with pointless junk? If you want, we can say you won, and you get the internet points, or you've exposed me as the evil bad faith actor trying to get away with a mean comment, or whatever the point of this was.
it isn't; i generally super don't appreciate calls for action. so if you wanted to believe i came to defend it, that was a swing and a miss.
> If you want, we can say you won, and you get the internet points, or you've exposed me as the evil bad faith actor trying to get away with a mean comment, or whatever the point of this was.
sure! will fit in just right when you'll later retell this story from the pov of an innocent victim who dindunuttin at all.
or we could be a bit more honest, and address why we're of the position that we're approaching from, genuinely without trying to taunt the other. would almost resemble an adult conversation. but then i'd be lying if i said i care or have any interest in doing so at this point, and i'd be equally surprised if you do.
so maybe wrapping it up here really is the way to go, after all.
I promise, I am not going to be talking about the day perching_aix valiantly did... whatever they were trying to do.
My role here is to uphold the guidelines, which includes pointing it out to people that they have acted outside the guidelines when they may not realize that they’ve done so. Nobody said or thought you were an “evil bad faith actor”. It was a polite ask to try harder, which we do all the time. The ongoing escalation doesn’t make you seem like you’re committed to raising the standards here. This place only exists because enough people make the effort to push the standards up. It’s up to you what you want your role to be.
But you and dang are working overtime to protect altman and his minions from having their feelings hurt or be made of fun of.
slop