There's only one reality, some people are just more wrong about what they think it is. Let me know if you are seriously arguing for "alternative truth" so I can block you now and save us both the trouble.
The rest of your worldview seems poorly thought out as well. The logical endpoint of a society which must tolerate everything is true anarchy. We created rules and societal structure to avoid that because it SUCKS. You cannot collaborate effectively without rules and the backdrop of a functioning society. You must spend an incredible amount of energy being vigilant, defending yourself from the world, and verifying things. You cannot trust anything that you do not completely understand AND trust the source of, and you're less likely to understand things without knowledge sharing. People who are physicslly unable to contribute, who are arbitrarily deemed "weird", or who do not wish to harm others suffer massive disadvantages. Again... not worth it.
Saying that I should not be intolerant of intolerance is not only practically unsustainable, it's also hypocritical. You are yourself being intolerant of my intolerance, the very thing you are arguing against myself doing. In fact, if you are against intolerance wholesale, shouldn't you agree with me that whoever is being intolerant in the first place is wrong?
i invoke fallacies because they are part of reality. the vast majority of human beings operate with cognitive and logical fallacies, there are inherent aspects of every single person.
It's called a fallacy because it's a thought trap. It's something so obviously paradoxical and self-defeating that honestly, if you want to continue running into them at full speed and insisting you're right anyways by waving your hand and saying abacadabra, I don't see the point of replying further. Suspicions confirmed, goodbye and good luck.
Just because you can draw a similarity between two methods of thinking doesn't man they're equally valid/invalid. You have to compare it to reality. You're also invoking the tolerance of intolerance fallacy here.
Are you? Because now we've agreed on every fact to determine my conclusion is correct. Yes they do want people using their product; they want to lure in customers. Wasting tokens generating unhelpful output would both drive customers away with a worse experience, and cost them more money. So there's no reason for them to do that. Like I said in my first post.
Creating additional tokens LOSES them money. For a single token, the cost of generating it exceeds the profits.
I genuinely don't understand what would drive someone to be this condescending when you don't even understand the argument I have clearly laid out four times now.
Because they currently lose money for every token sold. They're operating at a loss to generate a userbase so that they can monetize later. They're currently in the pre-enshittification (I still don't like that word) phase where they want to offer a good product at a loss and lure in customers, not phase 2 where they monetize their userbase.
Hail is larger and is created from strong winds tumbling and freezing layers onto ice in a storm. Sleet (either definition) and hail are quite different.
There's only one reality, some people are just more wrong about what they think it is. Let me know if you are seriously arguing for "alternative truth" so I can block you now and save us both the trouble.
The rest of your worldview seems poorly thought out as well. The logical endpoint of a society which must tolerate everything is true anarchy. We created rules and societal structure to avoid that because it SUCKS. You cannot collaborate effectively without rules and the backdrop of a functioning society. You must spend an incredible amount of energy being vigilant, defending yourself from the world, and verifying things. You cannot trust anything that you do not completely understand AND trust the source of, and you're less likely to understand things without knowledge sharing. People who are physicslly unable to contribute, who are arbitrarily deemed "weird", or who do not wish to harm others suffer massive disadvantages. Again... not worth it.
Saying that I should not be intolerant of intolerance is not only practically unsustainable, it's also hypocritical. You are yourself being intolerant of my intolerance, the very thing you are arguing against myself doing. In fact, if you are against intolerance wholesale, shouldn't you agree with me that whoever is being intolerant in the first place is wrong?
It's called a fallacy because it's a thought trap. It's something so obviously paradoxical and self-defeating that honestly, if you want to continue running into them at full speed and insisting you're right anyways by waving your hand and saying abacadabra, I don't see the point of replying further. Suspicions confirmed, goodbye and good luck.