Comment by martin-t
2 days ago
> not only did you not point out a single instance of their alleged intellectual dishonesty
>> It's likely to be worse though, as people don't do it.
> This whole last sentence is fallacious.
I did point it out, quite explicitly so.
> but let's ask an LLM what it thinks > So, it is factually true
LLM don't operate on facts, LLM generated output is irrelevant to your assertion. (I could do the same for your and robertlagrant's replies and get the same results but I won't bother. Do it yourself if you disagree with me.)
> intentionally lying about the emotional connotation of that phrase
I don't care that it's emotionally charged. I challenge you[0] to come up with a better way to say people are getting exploited without being emotionally charged.
[0]: Oh, I guess this is also manipulative. Might be just the way people talk to each other.
---
For the record, the video compares 3 distributions - what people think it should be, what people think it is, and what it actually is. Neither me nor the video mentioned "evenly distributed" like you claim.
> That's what you said, literally in the same line as the link:
And now you inexplicably claim something else:
>> to quote "1% of of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth"
Are you arguing 1% owning 40% and even distribution are the only 2 options?
> Just angry opinions and envy and greed > outraged and thinking that their outrage is a substitute for an argument > unable to parse actually coherent arguments > "passive aggressive dismissal" > the point of Hacker News is intellectual curiosity, which means rational discussion, and not just emotional outbursts and fallacies
Please take your own advice here.
Note that ad hominems are still ad hominems even if you speak about me in third person. You claim you only attack my arguments and then conclude with this??? ;)
I am happy for people to challenge me and improve the way I can argue. I am also open to being proven wrong but then there has to be another explanation for inequality. Yes, you have no obligation to find it and I could be arguing wrong for the right position. However then refuting arguments against inequality without offering a solution is effectively supporting it - if people get the message that all arguments against it are wrong, then they will get the impression inequality is right.
---
Look, you might have had some good points in your first response and I might have assumed bad faith from robertlagrant too early because several things in his first post ticked me off. But your first reply already concluded with strongly emotionally manipulative language. Your second reply reads like you grasping for straws, any straws, to discredit me, throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. It does not further the solution to inequality in any way.
> I did point it out, quite explicitly so.
No, you factually, objectively, did not, because fallacious arguing is not the same as intellectual dishonesty (as can easily be learned from looking up the definition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty). So, this is the first factually incorrect thing you have stated in this post.
> LLM don't operate on facts, LLM generated output is irrelevant to your assertion.
This is the second factually incorrect thing. LLMs are trained on vast corpus of human writing and so have an extremely large amount of latent understanding of tone of language. Factually, the output of an LLM is relevant to my assertion.
> I don't care that it's emotionally charged.
> I am happy for people to challenge me and improve the way I can argue.
So now you're being a hypocrite and a liar - if you don't care that it's emotionally charged, then you're definitely not happy to have people improve the way you can argue, because emotionally charged statements are not arguments.
> However then refuting arguments against inequality without offering a solution is effectively supporting it
Third factually incorrect statement. I don't have to tell the cook how he made my soup wrong if it tastes bad. I just have to say that it's not good, and that's that.
That's three falsehoods and one lie in just those parts of this comment, let alone the many others in your other comments. You have no intention to actually engage in debate or seek truth.
From your link
> not twisted to give misleading impressions
Pretending something is worse because people don't do it is misleading (whether the other person is aware of the bias/fallacy or not)
> LLMs are trained on vast corpus of human writing and so have an extremely large amount of latent understanding of tone of language
[citation needed]
Also https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-...
> because emotionally charged statements are not arguments.
Arguments can be emotionally charged or neutral. Those things are orthogonal.
> I don't have to tell the cook how he made my soup wrong if it tastes bad.
Bad analogy. Systematically refusing arguments of one side while not doing the same to the other gives onlookers a biased impression (conscious or not).
---
You can be angry all you want and try to be pedantic to "prove it", it's not gonna change anything. This conversation is over.