this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
4 points (83.3% liked)

WetShaving

744 readers
8 users here now

This is a community of enthusiasts, hobbyists and artisans who enjoy a traditional wet shave: brush, soap, and safety or straight razor. We are a part of the WetShaving community found on Reddit, Discord, and IRC.

New subscribers welcome!

Please visit our wiki, which is always and forever a work in progress.

🪒 Check out these alternative front-ends for this server:

https://gem.wetshaving.social/ - a nice modern interface

Our sister Mastodon instance is https://wetshaving.social/.

🪒 Track the uptime of our various services here:

https://uptime.splettnet.com/status/wetshaving

🪒 Community Rules

Rule 1 - Behaviour and Etiquette
Rule 2 - Content Guidelines
Rule 3 - Reviews and Disclosure
Rule 4 - Advertising
Rule 5 - Inappropriate Content
Rule 10 - Moderator Discretion

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Share your shave of the day!

Atlas Shaves Theme - LA Shaving Soap Company - Woody Lavender (Ho wood, lavender, amyris bay)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PorkButtsNTaters666 3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

You have the AirBud point but you’re choosing to not use it. But that’s the ultimate AirBud thing to do. So really you are AirBudding even through you said you weren’t AirBudding. Which, is, obviously, AirBudding.

I was confused. So obviously, I asked Claude to explain this to me:

The quote you've shared is making a meta-joke: It's suggesting that choosing not to use an Air Bud-style loophole is itself an Air Bud move, since presumably there's no rule saying you can't choose not to use an Air Bud loophole. Then it takes this further, noting that this creates a recursive loop - the very act of saying you're not using an Air Bud loophole becomes an example of using one. It's a clever piece of circular logic that plays with the concept of self-reference, similar to paradoxes like "this statement is false" or the classic barber paradox.

In terms of strict logical reasoning it falls apart under scrutiny because:

  1. Not doing something isn't automatically an example of that thing (not playing basketball doesn't make you a basketball player)
  2. The core premise of "Air Budding" is exploiting a specific loophole to do something novel - simply not doing something doesn't fit that definition

It's like saying "By refusing to be a rebel, you're rebelling against rebellion, which makes you a rebel!" It's not actually logically sound.

@enndeegee@sub.wetshaving.social is out according to our wise robotic overlords.

~All hail our wise robotic overlords, be they Chinese or American~

[–] walden 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

This is hilarious and unnerving.

[–] PorkButtsNTaters666 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Are there any plans to train a LLM on the yuge data ofsthis server?

[–] merikus 2 points 3 weeks ago

I am convinced that the absurd growth in /r/Wetshaving subscribers (I don’t know if you’ve seen my analysis of this, but we had literally linear growth of over a hundred thousand members in two years) is LLM accounts. Which means that ChatGPT is, indeed, us. It is trained on us; it understands us.

Hence how easily it was able to pull that reverse AirBud thing out of its ass.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)