• Toribor@corndog.socialEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    I asked my employer provided AI assistant if this is true and it assured me that natural snowfall was disinformation invented by leftists in order to destroy our capitalist utopia.

  • Mesa@programming.dev
    0·
    9 months ago

    It’s gotten to a point where I just go ahead append a warning that I have no source and am just making casual conversation.

    Source: my previous comment on Lemmy.

    • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
      0·
      9 months ago

      Republicans have a hard time understanding nonliterals, it’s honestly weird and one of the most common denominators between them I’ve noticed

      • leftytighty@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice even if that choice dooms us all. Liberalism is going to collapse in the silliest way

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          0·
          9 months ago

          The goal should be to have less uninformed people overall by educating the population. But unfortunately the people in charge keep voting against funding education (and basically anything beneficial to society).

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          9 months ago

          Weird to think that human civilization will collapse out of a misplaced sense of fairness where we think it’s better for uninformed people to have a choice

          Every one who wants something other then what i want is uninformed.

          To the uninformed, no representation for you. Get over it. Go to therapy to cope with your new forever.

          • leftytighty@slrpnk.netEnglish
            0·
            9 months ago

            Yeah when it comes to fascism, climate change denial, failing to meet the basic needs of citizens, and other conservative platforms, I don’t give a shit about their representation

  • root_beer@midwest.socialEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    Hidden panel: guy on left saying “google it yourself, don’t expect me to have to teach you anything”

    Why should anyone ever have to substantiate their claims???

      • root_beer@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I suppose the obvious stuff, sure

        Guess I’m just rankled by seeing so many people making baseless claims and then telling everyone to figure it out themselves when they get called out on it, and it’s not the same as this.

  • Corgana@startrek.website
    0·
    9 months ago

    I think it’s totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn’t been true for over a decade?

  • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
    0·
    9 months ago

    Let’s not vilify people asking for citations. With AI it’s more important than ever to verify what you’re reading.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      9 months ago

      Sealioning is not about citations. It’s bad-faith harassment.

      Bad faith only works because it resembles good faith. Calling it out is not somehow a condemnation of good faith.

    • abbenm@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 months ago

      I’m absolutely okay with vilifying people asking for sources on the historical existence of snow.

      • underisk [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        0·
        9 months ago

        The historical existence of snow depends on where you’re talking about. Climate is changing but not every manifestation of that will cause less snow. It’s possible some places start getting more as rising temperatures create more moisture in the air in places that are historically cold and dry. For example, parts of the mountains here in Nevada had unusually high snowfall, like Lee’s Canyon While looking at (what appears to be) the historical data for the US overall doesn’t seem to show a significant deviation at a cursory glance.

        Saying these things are obviously true while not bothering to check if they’re factually accurate is misrepresenting the problem and leaves openings for climate denialists to make themselves more credible. “You said snowfall was going down but it just saw record snowfall in the news!” Which is a bad argument but a convincing one to people who aren’t inclined to deal with a global apocalyptic problem.

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          0·
          9 months ago

          I’m talking about the fact that it ever happened, at all, anywhere. In this sense and in this spirit that I say “the historical existence of snow.” It’s not about a particular place or amount.

  • zeppo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    I’ve definitely noticed people who challenge anything you say by asking for a source, but make tons of unsourced claims themselves.

  • fl42v@lemmy.ml
    0·
    9 months ago

    The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them

  • Nyanix@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    ngl, I don’t comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya’ll, I’ve got a job and a life, I can’t/don’t want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.

    • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone
      0·
      9 months ago

      What, feeling too good for an unproductive Internet fight with strangers who probably would agree with you if they could read?

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      0·
      9 months ago

      This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.

      People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.

      Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.

      I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        0·
        9 months ago

        I’m wondering how many people skipped your comment because it was too long.

        I’ve had people go “I don’t have time to read 3 paragraphs!”, as though that’s some kind of argument against the point I’m trying to make. Attention spans are down.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          0·
          9 months ago

          I tend to front-load my comments as much as possible, to try and avoid just that. Make the main point ASAP. But even then, there’s only so much you can do without sounding messy.

          For instance, I front-loaded the part about reader comprehension. All of the “why” is in later paragraphs. But even if they only read the first few sentences, they’ll at least get my overall point.

          It does make nuanced discussion impossible though. I work in a pretty specialized field (professional audio) with lots of snake oil myths about what will or won’t make your system sound better. There have been several times that I have seen people parroting this snake oil type stuff as if it is genuine advice. And often, this advice happens because the person only has a surface-level understanding of how audio works. Something sounds plausible, (and they don’t understand the underlying principles that would disprove it,) so they end up perpetuating the myth. So a lot of discussions boil down to “well kind of but not really” and people won’t bother reading anything past the “well kind of” part.

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        0·
        9 months ago

        This is my first exposure to this idea and it’s quite compelling. Couple that with the perceived tone being argumentative instead of inquisitive or ignorant and that’s a recipe for disaster.

        The fact the algorithms only care about engagement, positive or negative, means rage bait takes over too so that doesn’t help the perception that a question is actually an attack.

      • ilhamagh@lemmy.world
        0·
        9 months ago

        Hmm good point. Never realized there could be connection with hyper curated algorithm and main character syndrome.

        Now I kinda understand why “just look away” makes no sense to these kinda people.

      • Aqarius@lemmy.world
        0·
        9 months ago

        This is a very interesting idea. It would certainly explain why people seem to constantly “infill” everything everone says with whatever gets them the most angry - the algo feeds them ragebait, so that’s what they see.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    0·
    9 months ago

    You get people who believe jet contrails only started appearing in the 90s even though that they didn’t is literally within living memory.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 months ago

    I rather have a source to support a claim instead of “but it’s how I feel so it’s real! Scientists don’t know anything, stop debunk my feelings with facts because I know I’m right! I read it on Facebook!”

    We need more reliable and supported sources and less fake news.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 months ago

    I’ve already had people demand “source?” for the most mundane facts. Why yes steroids do enhance physical ability.