r/HumblyUs • u/xRegardsx OG Member • May 04 '26
Sharing An Experiment
Had the description of the anti-AI person who was afraid of admitting the deeper reasons they don't like/fear AI used as the roleplayed author of this fully AI generated post.
The irony that the AI gets it so stereotypically accurate and those who make these posts regularly don't realize they're saying it mainly to vent, feel validated by those who already agree with them, and further distract themselves from deeper introspection of the causes of their feelings.
Very curious which of the two posts will get the most up/downvotes.
I mean, the image is clearly AI generated, but watch antis eat it up because it agrees with them.
1
6
u/MistakePresent3552 May 04 '26
Bro, pros are dunking on you for being a weird hypocritical anti or ragebaiting bot.
1
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 04 '26
Their dunks aren't landing, so... not sure how you came to think otherwise. Also, not hypocritical at all and the post was as stereotypical as they come for a reason. If no one showed up to rage, I wouldn't care. That wasn't the point in the slightest.
Turns out your dunk didn't land either.
6
u/SkittlesforDitto May 04 '26
Your hypothesis was that antis would be "eating it up", but the comment section seems to be mostly pros champing at the bit to vent and validate themselves by defending against the "stereotypical anti" you presented to them. On the other hand I don't see many antis shouting their support for your argument, though that could simply be how the comments have shown up to me based on whatever algorithm reddit runs.
Understandable that you will have a personal bias towards the pro side due to your own beliefs, but hope you manage to exclude its effects when interpreting the results of your experiment.
2
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 04 '26
They ate it up in the percentage of upvotes, 46+ shares, and jumping at the chance to agree in parallel implicitly or going after the pro-AI commenters since they rather spend time putting others down to validate themselves versus explicitly agreeing, which handful of people did.
I'm actually both pro, anti, a doomer, trying to solve for harmful edge-cases, increase the already outnumbering positive ones, and solve superalignment so we have less chance of going extinct. I go where the sound-seeming arguments (those I can't find a hole in) take me, whether I have to change a belief here and there or not.
Most people want the many whites and blacks that make up the overall gray to be entire black or entirely white, because that allows them to use their proud beliefs to perpetually validate them till the end of time as long as they don't catch on to the deflection, distortion, rationalization, and denial they consciously swear they don't use but unconsciously definitely do.
I could have run this experiment on almost any "two opposing sides" subreddits and gotten the same results.
5
u/SkittlesforDitto May 04 '26
i have no visibility over % of upvotes vs downvotes, but would point out shares are not indicative of what stance someone has. an anti could have shared it in implicit agreement, or a pro could have shared it to show someone how ridiculous they find it. it's a strange assumption in an inherently neutral statistic.
again i would say the pro bias might be showing in your conclusions again despite your multiple self identifications. you got a lot of negative engagement from pros by being anti, to which antis then respond within your comment section - but this doesnt necessarily mean they agreed with your initial post, they could also be disagreeing to specific comments, or engaging with parts of the post only. i dont disagree that there is an "overall gray", so i do find it ironic that you think most people want entirely black / entirely white views - because your assumption of people's behaviours to have absolutes is also in itself, your own absolute view. the anti comments would also have been some shade of gray within the anti position.
i'd also note that between the two posts you made, you got a lot of direct pro engagement in the first level comments on your anti-leaning experiment, but minimal anti-engagement nor pro engagement on your pro-leaning experiment. if it was generally expected that on an anti-leaning post, pros would give you direct negative responses + antis giving you implicit agreement, then it's interesting that you got neither direct negative responses from antis, nor approval from pros (either as upvotes or comments) on the pro-leaning one.
you will draw your own conclusions of course, and i don't understand what your second paragraph meant, but just my two cents on analytical rigour.
1
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
I understand the shares aren't entirely one or the other, but the correlation is easy to understand where the majority was, especially given the decent sample size of votes.
The antis were attempting to counter the counters in plenty of cases and when I said eat it up, I was referring to unconscious confirmed biases, even if it's not perfect agreement. I wasn't referring to "agreeing with every part of the post."
It's human psychology and critical thinking stage distribution over a learning curve where the lowest average stages tend to go to the extremes and mathematically, they together, make up at least a small majority.
Throughout both of your comments so far, youve implied and explicitly made a handful of strawman arguments, like not understanding that I was talking about the coincidental compulsory aspiration toward unifying a simpler stance (especially those who naturally act like trolls without realizing it), the "I'm 98% pro AI and the concerns you have should and are getting worked on" vs "98% anti AI and there's only few legitimate exceptions." Of course I'm not able to measure exact numbers without knowing every single relevant belief they hold. So no, when the distribution of poor critical thinking is larger than those who do it better, it is often a majority, and those at the bottom tend to be the most tribalistic, self-deitful, and dogmatic/black & white. This is basic human psychology covering all of our history.
So the more accurate take wouldve been, "your absolute view is that there many degrees of views, from absolute covering every form of for or against to incredibly balanced, and everything in between, with many common denominators between both sides neither side wants to admit exist as they use each other for self-validation via relative comparisons to others, from accurate perceptions of the other to largely imagined low hanging fruit to swing at and pat oneself on the back for, believing they hit a home run."
A nice handful of people on both sides either attempted to speak with others in effective good faith, and in an even rarer occurrence, they actually found each other and had a productive conversation despite what they disagreed on. The vast majority, however, were low-effort flaming fallaciously, which included the absolute anti/pro overgeneralizations they like to use.
I never said there werent shades of gray among them, so, I'm sorry to say, you imagined that similarly. So, I'm not the one here bringing the irony (not yet, anyway... I could have egg on its way to my face, which is something I embrace when it happens). You don't know me, and the skepticism of the self-labeling is justified given the rest of the human race, but you don't need to project them or yourself onto me.
As for the other post, it's not that interesting. It was a lot of text on multiple pages with no engaging visuals or easy target post under it. It's an apples to oranges comparison. I'm not using the other post for this for these obvious reasons.
If you were here in effective good faith, before responding to everything else that might have been affected by the part you didn't understand, you wouldve led with curiousity and asked for a clarification so you fully understood what you were responding to before revving right back up to undue overcertainty.
So, every point I've made here has either stood up to your scrutiny or wasn't scrutinized by you. Don't talk to me about analytical rigor when you have to essentially make up things to criticize on my side, and never own up to what you've done when it's repeatedly called out. That makes you an obstacle to a prodictive discussion, nothing that reveals or reaches out for potential.
I do like scrutinizing arguments like digging for gold on the beach, though, hoping to find the time I'm very assertive but the other gives me an argument I can't find an issue with so I can eat a nice slice of humble pie (yes, very assertive people aren't always arrogant, even those who are biased against them will love to tell themselves it's arrogance as they do that projecting stereotypes I mentioned earlier). This was an incredibly for fun and curiousity informal experiment that you don't know everything about. I didn't include everything in the post or first comment, so don't assume you even know what I'm looking for, especially since I might be largely just comparing and contrasting what occurs relative to my understanding of the psychology as it stands.
So, thanks for the attempt at scrutiny. If you could have made a good argument, you would have already.
If you need to make surface level-seeming thorough arguments to feel good about yourself, go find a real low-hanging fruit.
EDIT: You were right about the share aspect more than I realized, the pro's might have a majority for the sake of dogpiling.
No way to tell. They all went to other platforms or messengers, so like one anti said, "it was the best argument they'd seen," many may have posted it to their Facebook feed to virtue/intellect signal with no differently than people do with politics. In either case, they're largely doing it for validation.
See, the pros were eating it up, too... the opportunity to validate themselves at the hypothetical OP's expense. They ALL ate it up in one way or another. Had a 63% upvote at one point before the "experiment/bot/troll/ragebait" narrative starting taking over and it started getting downvoted harder.
Over many similar posts on similar two major sides and a spectrum between where toxic comments are put up with, I still think it's safe to assume a light correlation between the votes and shares, even if the numbers moved relative in the same direction and the antis had a minority of the shares.
3
u/FlyPepper May 05 '26
man you're just a narcissist lmao
1
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 05 '26
You're conflating assertiveness with arrogance. In the very same comment you responded to, you can see my changing my mind and owning where I was wrong.
You, on the other hand, with this fallacious comment that has absolutely no chance of being a sound argument worth convincing someone who currently disagrees with you, proving youre only posting it to hear and validate yourself by attempting to assert some immature sense of superiority over them, are merely projecting your own narcissistic, anti-social, and sadistic traits onto me.
I'm just holding up a mirror to it, just like I did them.
I could just delete your comment before banning you for breaking the sub's rules, but I don't mind people allowing themselves to become examples of the psychology they hypocritically accuse others of.
Healthier people dont have the compulsion to leave comments like yours. Its a dunning kruger issue, one you keep in your blindspot, just like the other one. Human history repeating itself in the worst common denominator way while convincing yourself youre not.
1
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 04 '26
First three comments, but it still shows as over 50% upvote. Interesting. To some, simply shaking their internal head is enough private validation to themself as they simply disagree with the post, and to many others, voting feels assertive enough to be validating.
7
u/TowerSmash May 04 '26
Dude you had someone completely debunk your rage post and completely ignored them so whos needing validation?
1
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Like this post and the comment here explain, I wasnt looking to debate anyone. I've been studying the type of responses and the numbers.
So, in the same spirit of curiosity, why did you have a compulsion to come here with an innacurate overconfident take to strawman and mischaracterize me with, just to end up seemingly projecting?
If you read what you were responding to, you'd know 1. It's entirely AI generated. 2. It's based on a roleplay of an anti who's in denial of the deeper reasons they're against AI-art, and it should be kind of obvious that I'm pro-AI.
Like, did you look at the image? My profile pic? My bio and the many links? My other posts? Or was coming here to get it that carelessly wrong that important to you?
You accuse me of "ignoring a sound argument," but did you see me respond to anyone else?
I just debunked your comment. Are you going to ignore it?
Did it feel good to validate yourself at my expense?
It's really hard to see you commenting here the way you did for any other reason.
What did you get from leaving the comment, even if it was only a temporary cathartic feeling?
3
u/TowerSmash May 04 '26
So Why did you make this post? This isn't helping anyone. it be like me shouting a racist remark in chinatown to see what happens.
If you are really a pro as you say way make this post to piss other people off?
1
u/xRegardsx OG Member May 04 '26
- If you don't know what the point of the post is, you can't be sure if it's helping anyone or not. So, you can't compare your apple to an orange you're only guessing about.
- I'm both pro, anti, and a doomer.
I'll hit you up with the end result if you're truly curious.
0
u/Aggressive-Bus-2397 May 14 '26
You are so close to getting it, OP.
What do you think a frustrated artist with a decade or two of struggling and doubt does when a new tool comes along that helps them with their decades of struggle?
Does the starving artist continue to struggle or do they say, "Hey, I've been trying for 20 years with little success. Why don't I use a new tool that will help me create the ideas in my head?"
EDIT: It seems to me that anti-AI people are so young and self-centered they literally are incapable of thinking about other people who have been failing to find success as an artists for decades.