Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
I know. Fixed. But I will not be doing any research myself — I'm not the one interested in finding out information regarding this. OP should be, however, since it seems to be a major concern for them. 👍
And you think OP is incapable of asking the AI?
What do you think you're adding to the conversation by adding AI to it?
Was the information wrong?
The information is pointless because it easily could be wrong. And now anybody who wants to know whether it's wrong or not has to research it themselves ... which they could have done from the beginning.
It just adds a layer of wasteful AI slop that, ultimately, brings absolutely no new information to the table.
Then that's an ad hominem. There's always a potential for error so that alone is not per se disqualifying; and despite how much it might anger you, the major LLMs are more accurate than random chance on questions like this. I feel like if you're going to be bitchy about it (and you seem quite determined to be bitchy about this), you have an obligation to at least do better than the guy who did almost nothing. At least google it or something. Right now you're just telling us, "I can't even say that's wrong, I'm just upset you used an LLM."
I'm not trying to "add AI" to this, nor am I asking OP to use AI... I am saying that actual research should be done to find out more/actual facts.
I think you're derailing this from where I intended it to go. I just wanted to show a quick example of what was already stated — that commercial plane travel is quite efficient, fuel-to-passenger wise. But if "you" want to know more, there's better sources than the quick AI response, hence why I mentioned that it was an AI response in the first place so there's no mistaking it for a real quote. I made sure I cropped the image very carefully too, to include that it was AI, so there's no doubt of that fact.
We're on the same side here, of AI hallucinations and all that, friend. Don't worry. 👍 So let's put that to rest, thanks.
We're really not, if you still think injecting AI slop into a conversation is a good and useful thing to do.
Then we are.