So yes, it would get upvoted despite taking liberties with the exact details and thus being a fictionalized version of reality that uses facts from reality to make a point.
I call nonsense.
If you replaced “Me” and “I” and “Jeremy” in this post with “anthropomorphic bunny,” making it clear the text is not from a real person, there’s no way it would be on the front page of Lemmy. It wouldn’t have even made it wherever OP saw it.
I suppose the real problem I have with your critique is that it’s pointless to attack an AI version of a meme because of the content of the meme which has been reposted in a million ways by humans before you found your way onto the internet, instead of attacking the fact it’s just an AI powered repost of a true meme.
I find this implausible too.
If it was a meme with a message you didn’t like, would you have issue with an “AI powered repost of a true meme?” You can’t tell me you wouldn’t. Just because you like the message, that its sentiment is true somewhere doesn’t make presenting a fabrication as a real anecdote ethical.
I call nonsense.
If you replaced “Me” and “I” and “Jeremy” in this post with “anthropomorphic bunny,” making it clear the text is not from a real person, there’s no way it would be on the front page of Lemmy. It wouldn’t have even made it wherever OP saw it.
I find this implausible too.
If it was a meme with a message you didn’t like, would you have issue with an “AI powered repost of a true meme?” You can’t tell me you wouldn’t. Just because you like the message, that its sentiment is true somewhere doesn’t make presenting a fabrication as a real anecdote ethical.