Tbh in my experience LLM and other recently developed techniques such as stable diffusion are referred to as GenAI by most lay people. For both lay people and technical audience, i.e. people who work in machine learning, AI has a much broader significance.
Most people on Lemmy seem to define AI as “evil machine learning that i don’t like” vs non-AI as everything else. It’s a wee bit delusional.
Honestly I don’t see them complaining nor are they pretending that it’s uniquely male. I just don’t see any words to support that. Do you think you might be reading a bit too much into it?
That’s fair, I don’t be necessarily disagree, but perhaps another way of thinking about it is simply by looking at the diversity and types of interpretations that there may be for a particular work. For example, a book club reading 1984 would likely discuss the author’s intended reflection on the real world; whereas a book club reading LOTR (depending on the individuals) is much more likely to be discussing the emotions and individual travails and growth of the characters and how the relate to a world which is distinctly its own (even if there are inevitable similarities to our own). In practice, I feel that is a clear enough distinction.
I interpret it quite differently to mean that a good (hi)story is indeed its own unique creation which can exist and be judged and enjoyed on its own accord without necessarily being a commentary or reflection of anything in the real world. Of course, all imagination relates to the real world to some extent—and that’s where applicability comes in—but it’s possible to reject the elements of allegory and in doing to build your own world which feels just as real and nuanced as our own.
Tbh your second paragraph being longer and starting with “In general I don’t agree with the Rogan hate” makes it sound very much NOT like a caveat but rather the main point of your comment.
Now this “we-found-an-enemy flag” defense you’ve brought up is just… weird. Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks. That’s just not what happened dude. If you want to argue your point, do it, but as a matter of fact you clearly indicated that you’re okay with what little push back he does give, whereas you did not make it clear that you think him being easily misled is a bad thing.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
Fair enough, that seems accurate!