Your argument is intellectually lazy, I stand by what I said.

I’m only mirroring your attitude friend, ban me if you want. Plenty of other places I can take my opinion. You would think as a mod you would want to foster participation in the community, and not get hung up on something so petty.

You came at me aggressively off the bat; if you can’t admit that, then we aren’t ever going to see eye to eye.

Screenshotting this whole thread.

And that’s different from this in what way?

-"I wasn't being lazy because I only used the lie machine a little bit."

Practice what you preach.

Lmao, what authority do you hold?

So, calling out blatant logical fallacies is not being civil?

Ok buddy, you do you…

So you don’t have an actual argument, you’re just going to prop up the LLM strawman instead?

Is what I said wrong? Or are your feelings hurt because I used a tool to summarize something?

Are you incapable of grasping that the LLM wrote a total of like 3 sentences in a 3 paragraph comment?

And yea, the fact that you can’t seem to google 3 words and read a couple articles instead of being purposefully obtuse reeks of intellectual laziness.

Sorry, not sorry.

If you can’t be bothered to spend 5 mins looking something up then you’re welcome to believe whatever you want.

This isn’t a court case, we’re having a conversation in an Internet forum. What you’re calling a “burden of proof”, I’m choosing to call intellectual laziness.

I’m perfectly capable of pasting a link to a website; I chose to use a source from a book I read in college and is sitting on a shelf at my house.

I’m not obligated to do a Google search for you.

And again, the LLM isn’t doing my research for me; it’s summarizing an event that I’m already aware of.

I don’t know what to tell you. You can pretty easily look up the agreed upon causes of two pretty impactful and well known historical events. We aren’t talking about some small conflict in some small village in sub-Saharan Africa; the events in question are the Russian revolution and fall of the Soviet Union.

I’m sure you can find dissenting opinions, but what I commented is largely agreed upon.

Had I not been honest about using LLMs to summarize a few sentences, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. If you want to play devils advocate, provide a differing opinion. Your only hang up seems to be that I used a LLM in any capacity.

I’m not even saying it’s the only cause, just that it contributed…

Lmao, we aren’t talking about some obscure, niche topic. You asked for a source and I gave you one…

Stop moving the goalposts; if anyone is arguing in bad faith it’s you my friend.

Google “russian revolution 1917” and read the first academic article you see. Your lack of research is not my responsibility…

A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.

Orlando Figes, 1998

Go read it and tell me what you learn; happy?

It’s not a 14 page paper, it’s two references to widely known historical events. I feel like I’m going insane…

Prompt: In 1-2 sentences, summarize the Russian revolution”s impact on social unrest.

Responses: Amidst widespread dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime due to economic hardship, military failures, and political repression, the Russian people ultimately overthrew a centuries-old monarchy.

I’m not saying “create me a story about Russian people revolting”. I’m taking an event I’m already aware of and asking for it to get boiled down to a simple statement.

I would know if it’s lying because I paid attention in high school and college & I know what the Russian revolution is.

This is being blown way out of proportion because people see “LLM” and freak out. I use LLMs constantly in my day to day life for shit like this (and I’m not going to stop). I also feed it things I’ve written and ask it to check grammar and tighten it up. The LLM isn’t “creating” anything in those cases either, it’s just making things easier to read/understand; acting as an editor.

Sorry if that scares you.

Strange how it seems to work for me…

I know precisely what I want to say, I’m just asking for the information to be condensed into a concise 1-2 sentence statement.

There’s a big difference in asking it to generate something wholesale vs. feeding it information and asking for that information to be summarized in a clean and easy to understand format.

I would argue that is the best way to use LLMs; it’s basically acting as an editor.

Understandable if the comment is entirely LMM generated, but to imply I should post a disclaimer every time one is used for summarizing content is a bit of a reach IMHO.

LMMs are a tool to be used, like anything else.

Full disclosure, the text is my own but some of the historical references were summarized through LMM and copy/pasted.

While Russia has avoided a complete economic collapse, the average Russian is facing a harsher economic environment with higher costs, reduced income, and fewer consumer options.

The long-term impacts of these sanctions and economic adjustments are still unfolding, but they have undeniably made daily life more difficult for many in Russia.

Has it reached a point that matches the historical instabilities that fostered revolutionary action in the past? No; but I do think the potential exists if the current sanctions and poor battlefield performance continue.

Two things are very hard to deny, even with heavy-handed propaganda: the cost of bread & loved ones returning home in coffins.

Honestly, poor political moves seem to be all the man is capable of. And his base (unfortunately) always seems to have just enough cognitive dissonance to eat it up and pivot/shift the goalposts.

More and more, I come to the conclusion that the only way forward is to stop fighting them, and instead focus on strengthening us.

The one thing MAGA republicans have in spades is a sense of unity and community, which is something we on the left need to foster (instead of infighting and segmentation).

While it might seem that the Russian population could disconnect under such dire circumstances, history shows that Russians have the capacity to rise against oppressive conditions imposed by their own government. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is a prime example. Amidst widespread dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime due to economic hardship, military failures, and political repression, the Russian people ultimately overthrew a centuries-old monarchy.

Similarly, the protests and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s highlight the power of their collective action. The combination of economic stagnation, political corruption, and a desire for greater freedoms led to mass demonstrations that ultimately brought down the regime.

These historical precedents suggest that while disconnection and passivity are possible; they are by no means guaranteed. When the consequences of government actions become too severe—whether through economic hardship, loss of life, or a perceived betrayal of public trust—the Russian populace has shown that it can indeed mobilize to demand change.

While universities have a duty to maintain order and educate, they also have a responsibility to be spaces where free thought can challenge existing norms. Disruption, though uncomfortable, often serves as the catalyst for meaningful dialogue and progress. If protests were only allowed to occur within strict confines, they might lose their power to inspire the kind of reflection and change that has historically made educational institutions breeding grounds for progress.

Balancing the need for order with the need for protest is tricky, but history shows that sometimes, it’s the disruptions that push us all forward. In my opinion, those (often powerful) institutions should be tempering their response to these disruptions; rather than asking their student body to temper their actions.

There is no greater opportunity for the exploration and development of radical thought than by allowing students to be a part of that future history (should they choose to).

You’ve made some really good points and I’ll be thinking on them in the days to come.

I don’t have much else to add, but I do want to say that I really appreciate the honest and nuanced discussion here.

At the end of the day, we don’t always have to always agree on every specific detail and these kinds of discussions allow us to explore our biases and will shape our collective responses. And that is good for the community as a whole…

While I feel we mostly are in agreement, I have a problem with the verbiage you use. Specifically the idea that the desired outcome is to force the population at large to “obey” protesters.

While no one should be forced to “obey” a protest, the disruption itself is often necessary to make the issues visible and impossible to ignore. It’s not about the right to be heard and obeyed, but about ensuring that the issues at hand cannot be easily dismissed or overlooked. Disruption, when done with purpose, has historically been a critical tool for marginalized groups to bring about the changes that polite appeals often fail to achieve.

Protests are largely only effective if they’re disruptive. That’s kind of the point… a protest you can easily ignore isn’t going to change anything.

And the point isn’t really to gain support, it’s to force change.

Edit: To expand on this, there are much more effective ways to gain support; mainly through community interaction, conversation and education. Which should be seen as separate action vs. protesting.

Edit 2: Upon re-reading my comment I would like to amend my statement that the point is to force “change”. While change is the desired outcome, the point of protests is to force awareness.