• Beacon@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    28 days ago

    As i said in other comments, none of that matters. The point is to gather ideas that you otherwise might not have come across. And also as said already, ai generated opinion pieces should never be the only opinions you hear.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      What use is an opinion that can neither be explained or defended by the person giving it? How is that useful to a person making decisions for millions of people?

      • Jiří Král@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Just throw out LLM ideas you don’t find reasonable and only use ideas that you yourself find reasonable. You don’t instantly turn into a zombie when you use LLM. You can still use your head.

          • Jiří Král@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            You protect yourself against “propaganda” by educating yourself and not falling for emotions. Not reading LLM responses won’t safe you from propaganda.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              27 days ago

              This is similar to saying that you protect against malware by using an antivirus and not being careful in what you download and run. I hope you can see the analogy.

              There’s no such thing as “not falling for emotions” for humans.

      • Beacon@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        28 days ago

        It can do those things. And you need to re-read what’s already been said on this comments page, because how it’s useful has been explained several times already

          • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            28 days ago

            How is “not understanding things” preventing an LLM from bringing up a point you hadn’t thought of before?

          • Beacon@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            28 days ago

            It really can. I’ve used ai, I’ve personally seen it do it tons of times. It can make cohesive arguments backed up by reasonable rationales. It doesn’t need to “understand” anything to do this. Do you need me to write some prompts and copy n paste ai’s response to prove it to you?

          • Beacon@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            28 days ago

            EDIT - y’all are so silly, you’re just gonna downvote this incontrovertible proof of it doing exactly what you said it couldn’t do, and instead just pretend it doesn’t exist


            Since it’s so easy to do i just went ahead and did it for you. Here’s my prompts and ai’s replies. It will write any opinion you want it to talk about, and give cogent reasonings and arguments for that opinion.

            Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is bad. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

            Why Removing Car Lanes for Bike Lanes Can Be Counterproductive

            Reallocating car lanes to create bike lanes may seem progressive, but it can have unintended consequences that undermine its goals. In densely populated urban areas, vehicular traffic remains essential for commerce, emergency services, and commuting—especially for individuals who cannot rely on biking due to age, disability, or long travel distances. When car lanes are removed, congestion intensifies, leading to increased emissions as drivers idle longer and search for alternative routes.

            Public transportation often depends on road infrastructure too. Buses trapped in traffic delays become less reliable, disproportionately affecting lower-income riders who depend on them. Additionally, essential services like ambulances and delivery trucks face new bottlenecks, risking delays that can have serious implications.

            The assumption that cyclists will replace drivers ignores demographic and logistical realities. Bike lanes benefit a specific subset of urban users—but they shouldn’t come at the cost of broader mobility. Instead of eliminating car lanes, cities should consider expanding bike networks where space allows or investing in multimodal infrastructure that improves mobility for all users.

            Urban planning should strive for balance, not substitution. Redesigning streets must enhance accessibility across the board, not create new friction between commuters who are simply trying to get where they need to go.


            Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is good. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

            Opinion: Why Converting Car Lanes to Bike Lanes Benefits Everyone

            Urban spaces must evolve to meet the needs of modern communities—and converting car lanes into bike lanes is one of the smartest, most equitable moves cities can make. First, bike lanes promote healthier lifestyles. By making cycling safer and more accessible, people are more likely to trade short car trips for active commuting, which supports physical health and lowers emissions.

            Second, cities thrive on efficiency. Cars take up tremendous space and often carry just one passenger. Bikes, by contrast, use a fraction of that space and cause significantly less wear on infrastructure. Fewer car lanes mean reduced traffic volume over time as behavior adjusts, alleviating congestion—not worsening it.

            Third, these changes make streets safer. Studies consistently show that well-designed bike infrastructure leads to fewer traffic collisions and fatalities. Cyclists separated from speeding vehicles feel safer, and drivers operate with greater awareness.

            Finally, this shift reflects a cultural transformation: from car dominance to sustainable mobility. Prioritizing bike infrastructure signals that our cities value cleaner air, quieter streets, and more livable neighborhoods.

            Reshaping roads isn’t just about bikes—it’s about building cities for people, not just machines. Let’s pedal forward together.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      You can’t trust yourself to be impartial. That’s why scientific method and various approaches (even like dialectics god forbid) were invented to leading a discussion.

    • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      I certainly don’t want my attorney wasting time considering the opinions and motivations of the person that’s suing me.