T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That was my intent.
Will AI lead to a basic minimum wage?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Wait, wouldn't it be better for everyone if he did?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, I really can't post solid evidence beyond what I already have. I'm not going to post up lots of personal info--I don't think anyone would--that could absolutely prove it.
Here's my last military history article. I've been working on a book on the early history of surface-to-air missile systems so I haven't done any new articles lately.
Not when an AI digger can do it.
I'll let Grok explain.
Anecdotal claims are justifiably dismissed in serious contexts because they are inherently low-quality evidence that cannot reliably support general conclusions, establish expertise, or substitute for verifiable facts.
This is a core principle in critical thinking, science, epistemology, and evidence-based reasoning.
Here's why:
1.
- Anecdotes are personal stories or self-reported claims ("I have degrees in X," "I advised based on my experience").
- They are easy to fabricate, exaggerate, or misremember with no independent way to check them without additional evidence (transcripts, licenses, witnesses, documentation).
- In the forum example: Tbird19482's claims about counseling degrees and professional status are pure anecdote. No public records, license lookup, or corroboration support them—making dismissal the rational default until evidence appears.
2.
- Self-serving bias: People overstate credentials or experiences during arguments to win points (status, persuasion, deflection).
- Memory distortion: Humans confabulate details over time. Degrees blur, experiences get embellished.
- Selection bias: Only memorable or favorable anecdotes get shared; counterexamples are ignored.
- Forum environments amplify this—trolling, role-playing, and one-upmanship are common.
3.
- One (or a few) cases say nothing about broader reality. A single person's claimed success doesn't prove a method works, nor does one "professional" anecdote validate advice.
- Science and rational inquiry demand patterns, controls, replication, and larger samples to rule out coincidence, placebo, or cherry-picking. Anecdotes fail this entirely.
4.
- The more impactful or unusual the claim ("I'm a qualified NY counselor diagnosing your substance use from forum posts"), the stronger the required proof.
- Burden of proof lies on the claimant. Dismissing unbacked anecdotes isn't "closed-minded"—it's rejecting the reversal of that burden. "So you say" is a valid response.
5.
- Relying on anecdotes leads to bad decisions: unqualified "advice" on health, policy, or expertise can cause real harm.
- In professional domains (counseling, medicine, engineering), societies require institutional verification (licenses, degrees from accredited institutions, peer review) precisely because anecdotes are unreliable.
- Forums add another layer: anonymity removes accountability.
When Anecdotes Have Limited Value
They can illustrate a point, generate hypotheses, or add color—but never stand alone as proof. In science, they are "case reports" at best (useful for rare events but requiring follow-up study). In debate, they are rhetoric, not evidence.
Bottom line: Dismissing pure anecdotal claims protects against misinformation, manipulation, and error.
It forces claimants to provide verifiable evidence (documents, records, data).
Without that, the default is skepticism—especially for self-promoted expertise in heated, low-stakes environments like political forums.
This isn't cynicism; it's how rational inquiry works.
Now, this is provenance - as far as it goes: "Terry A. Gardner enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1979 serving on active duty until 1985 then the reserves until 2005."
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Yea, you need Grok to explain things rather than do it yourself. That makes you lazy both intellectually and physically. As I stated, few people would be willing to openly post serious proof of their personal background in detail on the internet. I've given what I think is a reasonable level of proof that can be given and that my time on this board shows that I have been consistent in my claims about my background. If that isn't sufficient, too bad.
Oh, I have also met Lurch in person and we had some beers and a nice chat, so he knows who I am in RL.
the dual mandate is in major jeopardy. It simply can't survive AI
the games you all have been playing is coming to an end. who funds a basic minimum wage after the ability to inflate and hide tax behind inflation is no longer possible?
you retards are doomed for sure
in the industrial revolution entire careers were destroyed
but the cost to survive also dropped like a rock. for every person who's live was ruined - 3 others found it so much cheaper to live - it created a pressure releif valve - it was easy to lend a hand
you shit stains destroyed this. human innovation has been stolen for over 100 years as you cry about not having enough
well buckle up retardo. all the things you never understood are going to crash down on your pointy skull
Tbird19482
Verified User
Yep, as I said back in the early 80s I went and got my Bachelors in Business, on the GI bill ( was almost like a second job , paid well about $70 a week back in the early 80s,) then I worked for a large auto company and they had a job opening for a consular so I went to collage for that, and in the mean time I got my apprenticeship to become an Industrial electrician so I took that instead .
When I put the addition on my house, ( before I got my apprenticeship ) I had to be inspected and I was the last one Dan S, did and the first on the next guy did, and got rave reviews , it was Dan S, last job and I use to do Refrigeration on the side and did a job about 4 miles from my house , well the guy that did it was suppose to be an electrician. well the wires he ran looked like you through spaghetti on the floor it was a real mess and I told the guy it wasn't going to pass , well Dan S inspected that job right before he did my house, and he came in and looked around , and looked, and looked then asked my what electrician did it, I said I did , he said I could tell, well now I started to get worried , thinking I messed up. then he said no it is too perfect for a regular electrician to have done, that's when he asked me if he could have the guy that was replacing him come look at it, then he said I just went from about the worst job I had ever seen to the best and they were my last two jobs, that is when I told him where his last job was at and he asked me how I knew and I told him I saw it and told the guy it wasn't going to pass.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Then you should go read it. have a nice day
Tbird19482
Verified User
It would be a LOT better for everybody on here if YOU and INTO did that is for sure.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, we're in the Electronics Revolution now and have been since about 1910. No, it is NOT the Information Revolution as the information was always there, just organized less efficiently.
In the Industrial Age, information was done manually. You had skyscrapers full of clerks and typists, etc., that produced what someone using a world processor would today.
Industrial age spreadsheet:
Word processor in the Industrial Age
That's why corporations don't build skyscrapers anymore. No need for that volume of space to do their administrative work.
Factories have been automated in a like manner.
The problem is a large number of people have been left behind by this with little prospect of a good job. Part of the problem is that our education systems are still geared largely to the Industrial Age. What we need today are really sharp technicians and tradespeople with skills beyond just using tools and a basic understanding of their trade to keep everything running. There are millions of unfilled jobs of that sort, but people have been conditioned to look down on that sort of work and not want to do it because it is also physical in nature.
Non sequitur.
You're right. I did quote Grok on why anecdotal claims get dismissed.
That's not laziness.
I do it because Grok is the best available tool I know for quickly finding and structuring evidence. Formulating a precise question usually beats popping off with something I think I remember.
Epistemically, humans are riddled with cognitive biases (confirmation bias, availability heuristic, motivated reasoning, etc.) that make us overvalue our own stories and under-scrutinize friendly ones.
Outsourcing the structured breakdown to an AI that draws on logic, evidence standards, and philosophy of science helps counteract that.
It's no different from citing Hume (not the JPP @Hume), Sagan, or a textbook—except faster and less prone to my personal blind spots.
I applied the same standard to you that I apply to others (and myself).
Anecdotes need corroboration for credibility on specific claims. You provided some (better than zero), which is more than Tbird's boast-posting.
Nobody asked you to prove your USNI work here, BTW.
It's not personal; it's logical. Hitchens's Razor and the burden of proof are universal.
Nobody said they should.
I meant no disrespect. I posted facts. I didn't call you a liar. Consistent claims are still claims.
Here's a tip: don't post claims you aren't willing to verify if you don't want anyone to push back. Nobody is insulting you. If that makes you angry, that's on you.
Is that so?
So what?
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
It's both sloppy intellectually and lazy. If you were used to doing your own homework, you could find the information almost as fast as Grok and parse through it much better than Grok does.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
How's this?
That depends on the level of the claim
Ordinary claims require ordinary proof. That is, an ordinary claim is one that is accepted on its face. Then there's:
My concern with AI/UBI is not just where the money comes from. It is what kind of society it creates. We already live in a consumer culture where people expect more, more more, while treating production as someone else’s problem. If AI accelerates that mindset, we may end up with a society full of dependents arguing over claims on a shrinking productive class. Once people believe a comfortable life is owed to them independent of contribution, I am not sure we can fully fathom all the problems that will ariseWell, we're in the Electronics Revolution now and have been since about 1910. No, it is NOT the Information Revolution as the information was always there, just organized less efficiently.
In the Industrial Age, information was done manually. You had skyscrapers full of clerks and typists, etc., that produced what someone using a world processor would today.
Industrial age spreadsheet:
Word processor in the Industrial Age
That's why corporations don't build skyscrapers anymore. No need for that volume of space to do their administrative work.
Factories have been automated in a like manner.
The problem is a large number of people have been left behind by this with little prospect of a good job. Part of the problem is that our education systems are still geared largely to the Industrial Age. What we need today are really sharp technicians and tradespeople with skills beyond just using tools and a basic understanding of their trade to keep everything running. There are millions of unfilled jobs of that sort, but people have been conditioned to look down on that sort of work and not want to do it because it is also physical in nature.