Doesn't help when liberals constantly resort to backing up their arguments with a single academic paper that they do not have the credentials to interpret. Just go look on r/science on stormfront.

Academic papers are not holy divinations of God's will representing a steadfast unequivocal truth. They are written in the context of their particular economic and social system that incontrovertibly influences their hypotheses, methods, samples, findings, interpretations, etc. I have read papers that twist themselves in knots to provide milquetoast answers that avoid reckoning with capitalism and poverty, especially in healthcare and public health. However, they go along the rails of liberal ideology so they are not sufficiently questioned.

I think even Marxists and other leftists could benefit from improved scientific literacy in that way. We could be much better equipped to talk about and fight against how the system reproduces and enforces itself through academia.

[–] FortifiedAttack@hexbear.net 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I recently encountered a report that made the claim that AI generated text is actually far more CO2 efficient than an American writing the same text.

Which ignored the training of the model, the fact that far more text is generated than a person would ever write in their lifetime, that the quality of the text is useless spam, that a persons CO2 footprint doesn't exist for the sole purpose of, and doesn't entirely encompass them doing their job (ya know, people want to live a fucking life outside of writing) and so on and so forth.

The only kind of intent I can see behind such a claim is to make the argument that we should replace all writers with AI. And even then you wouldn't get rid of the person's CO2 footprint, so the next step after that would be to kill the person too.

Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

Techbros were pointing to this like it's the word of god.

"Trust the science"

The Science: