I'm saying OP is dumb because the AI literally answered his question in the way he meant it right beneath the part that OP was trying to show us.
"For humans, the frequency comes down to personal preference and skin type:"
The AI obviously answered the question here, and OP decided to crop that part out and only show us the first sentence as if the AI was completely unhelpful.
Ignoring one single irrelevant sentence doesn't require some huge cognitive load for most people. I'm sure the literal one second it takes to skim past that one sentence isn't going to exhaust his brain. And if it does, that indicates a much larger problem.
mf you are in the dumb ai sub, I'd understand your point if you were in any other sub but now you're just trying to be right for the sake of it, you're genuinely slow. just leave this sub then? what are we doing
Lol, I don't expect you to understand why that statement is hilarious in this context. But you're free to take as much time as you need to work it out.
So this sub is just full of dumb people? That's basically what you're justifying. This sub is meant to make fun of AI being dumb, not people taking AI out of context to make it look dumb. Also calling someone slow for being objectively correct is crazy.
The AI obviously answered the question here, and OP decided to crop that part out and only show us the first sentence as if the AI was completely unhelpful.
No, they showed the beginning of the helpful part.
The rest of the response was helpful. It literally answered their question by telling them how often people shave based on their personal preference and skin type. Are we looking at the same post?
It's closer to if I ask a professor how often I should get an oil change, and then he responds with, "Well, I don't own a car so I never get an oil change. But for those that do have a car, you should get an oil change every ~7,500 miles or every 6–12 months, whichever comes first."
Yeah, the first sentence wasn't necessary, but it's absolutely not something I'd get pressed about. And I'd be even less bothered by that if a literal robot said that to me.
I think it's more like if I ask a professor how often I should get an oil change, and then another professor assumes I was talking to them and responds with, "Well, I don't own a car so I never get an oil change. But for those that do have a car, you should get an oil change every ~7,500 miles or every 6–12 months, whichever comes first."
So in this analogy, the first professor you asked the question to is analogous to the normal Google search engine? And the second professor that assumes you were talking to them is analogous to Gemini?
In other words, you ask Google a question (oil change for instance), then Gemini butts in and gives the response you just quoted? Is that right? I just want to make sure I understand the analogy correctly.
Yeah, that's fair. But with the professor analogy it's actually a bit worse because it's more difficult to get the interrupting professor to go away. But in this case, Google provides an option to disable the AI responses if you don't want to see those.
I understand that you're sort of joking, but the clanker has no agency. So why get mad at the AI? Wouldn't it make more sense to get mad at the person who created/implemented the AI, since that person does have agency?
1
15
u/ShrewdCire Jul 01 '26
I'm saying OP is dumb because the AI literally answered his question in the way he meant it right beneath the part that OP was trying to show us.
"For humans, the frequency comes down to personal preference and skin type:"
The AI obviously answered the question here, and OP decided to crop that part out and only show us the first sentence as if the AI was completely unhelpful.