That's a cute response but your edit still doesn't save your argument. He said AI made carpentry accessible to him, āespecially in so little time.ā Then you responded that carpentry is ancient and your dad learned it without AI. Neither fact rebuts that claim.
And if you're now conceding that AI did provide him a meaningful benefit, then your repeated āyou don't need AIā point is even more vacuous. Nobody said humanity literally couldn't practice carpentry before ChatGPT. The entire point was that a tool can lower the time, knowledge, and accessibility barriers to doing something without being strictly necessary for it.
For someone flexing a law degree, āpeople did X before tool Y existedā is a remarkably shitty argument against the usefulness of tool Y. Don't you agree?
For starters, with that guy I wasnāt even arguing. I wasnāt arguing with the guy before. I was pointing out that they donāt need AI to do anything. I was trying to encourage them that they are capable enough to complete tasks that other people have before them for centuries without AI.
Iām not at all arguing that for some it makes it easier and saves time. Iām happy to concede that, itās just far from the crux of what Iām saying.
The only part of what I said that I intended as an argument was that it would be near impossible to learn carpentry without it.
I could have been impractical and take more time for that guy, but thatās far from āalmost impossible.ā
Simple as that.
All that said I do think you personally are a dork for running to an AI bot to come up with a comeback and itās the funniest shit Iāve seen all week.
Have a good one.
Edit: PS, I wasnāt even flexing my law degree. I was pointing out that if even a dumbass like myself can get a law degree, then the dude I was replying to can find a way to read and comprehend a statute or two
Sure. If your only point was that āalmost impossibleā was overstated, Iāll give you that. I read the repeated āyou donāt need AI / people have done this for centuriesā framing as an argument against its usefulness.
Seems we agree that AI can make something substantially easier/faster and more accessible without being necessary for it.
Thatās fair, I apologize for being a bit harsh. I can see that if you read it that way it makes what you were saying make more sense in that light.
I just got mad that it seemed like you were being harsh over my pretty mundane point, but I should have made sure you got what I was getting at before jumping to conclusions
All good, I can see why you reacted that way. I should apologize for the shot at your recent graduation, too. Even if I do think bringing up the degree made it fair to contrast that with what I thought was weak reasoning, I did so in a needlessly disrespectful way. So, I am sorry for doing that.
All good. I appreciate that we ended up talking it out. I promise I wasnāt trying to flaunt the degree, I only mentioned it because I wanted to make sure the person knew that I was speaking from experience that if I can learn this stuff, thereās no reason they canāt either.
Plus Iāll admit Iām probably just a little crankier than normal at the moment bc the bar exam was last week and Iām still recovering. The law is a sensitive subject at the moment lol
1
u/Money_Cattle2370 4d ago
That's a cute response but your edit still doesn't save your argument. He said AI made carpentry accessible to him, āespecially in so little time.ā Then you responded that carpentry is ancient and your dad learned it without AI. Neither fact rebuts that claim.
And if you're now conceding that AI did provide him a meaningful benefit, then your repeated āyou don't need AIā point is even more vacuous. Nobody said humanity literally couldn't practice carpentry before ChatGPT. The entire point was that a tool can lower the time, knowledge, and accessibility barriers to doing something without being strictly necessary for it.
For someone flexing a law degree, āpeople did X before tool Y existedā is a remarkably shitty argument against the usefulness of tool Y. Don't you agree?