LOL, read my post again. My entire point was that Biden used a clever ploy to give control back to the EPA after the SC killed it. Making CO2 a pollutant bypasses that ruling.
I joked elsewhere that I would like to mess around with a little AI moderation bot that tries to go beyond “is this racism” and into whether something is actually a productive part of the conversation.
I actually started messing around with such a thing tonight, no real idea whether it’ll come to anything. But I thought you should know that it particularly liked this comment. “A clarification of their previous point in a concise and clear manner. It refrains from personal attacks, engages with the substance of the discussion, and … maintains a respectful tone and effectively contributes to the discourse.”
I’ve been so far resisting the incredibly childish urge to tell people I’ve been disagreeing with that the bot thinks they are wrong. What’s the point. I will however tell you that it roasted FuglyDuck for his accusation of ad hominem being, itself, ad hominem (spending half his message saying he’s not the guy who is X Y Z, instead of just talking about the subject matter).
You made a bot that tells you you’re good at arguing and other people are bad and wrong? Very normal and productive behaviour. Not a tool to reinforce your beliefs.
You sound like Donald Trump getting all upset on Truth Social that someone’s subjecting his actions to legal scrutiny, when he should be able to go around being bullshit and lying and it’s some incredible breach of justice if someone tries to tell him that he shouldn’t.
oh, yes. I’m the one whose ignorant
not the guy using ad hominem attacks with zero evidence I’m wrong.
LOL, read my post again. My entire point was that Biden used a clever ploy to give control back to the EPA after the SC killed it. Making CO2 a pollutant bypasses that ruling.
I joked elsewhere that I would like to mess around with a little AI moderation bot that tries to go beyond “is this racism” and into whether something is actually a productive part of the conversation.
I actually started messing around with such a thing tonight, no real idea whether it’ll come to anything. But I thought you should know that it particularly liked this comment. “A clarification of their previous point in a concise and clear manner. It refrains from personal attacks, engages with the substance of the discussion, and … maintains a respectful tone and effectively contributes to the discourse.”
I’ve been so far resisting the incredibly childish urge to tell people I’ve been disagreeing with that the bot thinks they are wrong. What’s the point. I will however tell you that it roasted FuglyDuck for his accusation of ad hominem being, itself, ad hominem (spending half his message saying he’s not the guy who is X Y Z, instead of just talking about the subject matter).
Sounds like an actually useful bot!
You made a bot that tells you you’re good at arguing and other people are bad and wrong? Very normal and productive behaviour. Not a tool to reinforce your beliefs.
You sound like Donald Trump getting all upset on Truth Social that someone’s subjecting his actions to legal scrutiny, when he should be able to go around being bullshit and lying and it’s some incredible breach of justice if someone tries to tell him that he shouldn’t.
Yeah but what does your bot think?