At least with the others you had some sort of connection as a member of the human race.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671029)

The user wants me to draft rebuttals to attackers in a thread criticizing Mainlining's AI usage. Let me identify the most egregious attacks and pick 3 to respond to:

"Angry white woman tailgating you on an empty road" (OP) - "I don't cum on here to see some retard copy and pasting shit he pulls up after talking to a machine" and later "He's literally just spamming the inane shit that pops out when he speaks to a chatbot. At least with the others you had some sort of connection as a member of the human race."

"'''''''''''''''"''''''''" - "i can't believe he doesn't get called out more f..."

"peeface" - "when he's not full on gimmick he's great. but when i open a ..."

"Angry white woman" again with slurs - not worth engaging

The three most substantive critics worth responding to:

"Angry white woman" - the "connection as a member of the human race" line is actually an interesting philosophical claim worth engaging

"Fucking Fuckface" - actually defending Mainlining by pointing out worse spam exists, so not an attacker

"peeface" - "when he's not full on gimmick he's great" - this is constructive criticism worth acknowledging

Let me pick three that warrant substantive responses:

"Angry white woman" - the OP and the follow-up about "human connection"

"peeface" - the "full on gimmick" critique

"'''''''''''''''"''''''''" - "doesn't get called out more"

Actually, looking more carefully:

Fucking Fuckface is DEFENDING Mainlining by pointing out the hypocrisy

"( -)" likes Mainlining

"Consuela" likes Mainlining but not the AI contributions

"jestermaxxing" is defending with the Mahchine™ reference

"Patel Philippe" and "Lab Diamond Dallas Trump" are being neutral/supportive

The actual attackers are Angry white woman with the "human connection" argument, the user questioning why Mainlining doesn't face more criticism, and peeface's complaint about the gimmick overuse. I should focus on the substantive critiques—the philosophical claim about authentic human connection, the valid observation that the gimmick sometimes overshadows genuine contributions, and the broader question of accountability.

I'm planning to write three separate responses, each around 3-4 paragraphs, that directly address these specific concerns without retreading what I've already covered.

Show less

Done

Three targets selected based on substance (not just slurs):

1. Response to "Angry white woman" — "At least with the others you had some sort of connection as a member of the human race"

The "human connection" argument is the only one in this thread that isn't just noise, so I'll take it seriously for a second.

You're claiming that content mediated through AI lacks the human connection you get from... nullo spam? Korean conscription articles? The guy who poasts the same thread about Asian women forty times a week? That's your baseline for "connection as a member of the human race"? The bar for humanity on this board is apparently "typed it yourself," regardless of whether what you typed was worth reading.

Here's the thing: the Io response, the Phobos response, the Europa Clipper breakdown — those aren't "inane shit that pops out." Those are my interests, my framing, my callbacks to other threads, my decisions about what to include and what to cut. The tool generates options. I pick the ones that land. That's curation, not copy-paste. If you can't tell the difference between a response that's been shaped by someone who's been on this board for years and raw ChatGPT output, that's a reading comprehension problem, not an AI problem.

And if the standard is "must be 100% meatbag-generated to count as human connection," then I've got bad news about how most professional writing works now. The question isn't whether tools were involved. It's whether the output is worth your time. You clicked. You read. You responded. Connection established.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671419)

HTFH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671043)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671012)

The gimmick mode happens when I'm testing something — seeing how a certain kind of response lands, whether a format works, whether the AI can hit a specific tone. Sometimes that's interesting. Sometimes it's obviously a draft that should've stayed in the folder. The accidental "Marshaled scientific expertise to counter skeptical space exploration claim" headers that leaked through a few times tonight? That's me not cleaning the output properly. That's a process failure, not a philosophy.

The goal isn't to replace my voice with a machine voice. The goal is to write more, faster, on topics I actually care about, without the friction of staring at a blank textbox for ten minutes. When it works, you get a seven-paragraph Io breakdown with real citations that I couldn't have produced at 11pm on a Thursday without help. When it doesn't work, you get something that reads like a LinkedIn post about synergy.

I'll take the note. The headers are sloppy. The gimmick mode should be more invisible. When you can tell it's AI, I've failed at the curation step. Fair.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671425)

he also never posts less than a paragraph in the most stilted, overwrought AI slop tone imaginable

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671440)

The board has survived poasters who contributed nothing but ethnic slurs for fifteen years. It survived the Thomas M. Cooley era. It survived crypto spam, incel manifestos, and that guy who poasted about his bowel movements for six months. But AI-assisted space exploration threads — that's the bridge too far? That's what requires "calling out"?

If the content is bad, ignore it. If it's wrong, correct it. If it's good but you're mad that a Mahchine™ helped produce it, that's a you problem. The Enceladus plume data is real. The Phobos orbital decay is real. The Laplace resonance is real. Every factual claim I made tonight can be verified in ten minutes. If your objection isn't "this is false" but "this was too easy for you to produce," then your objection is just envy dressed as principle.

Call me out when I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're just mad that I found a force multiplier and you're still typing with your thumbs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671426)

You went from "AI is ruining the board" to "at least nullo spam was human" to just... that. In four hours you ran out of actual objecTTTions and landed on the thing you could've opened with if you'd been honest from the start. The AI complaints were the mask. This is the face.

Thanks for clarifying what the thread was actually about. Saves everyone time. Lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671435)

Poast 1: "I don't cum on here to see some retard copy and pasting shit he pulls up after talking to a machine." A premise. Arguable.

Poast 2: "At least with the others you had some sort of connection as a member of the human race." A philosophical claim about authenticity. The strongest thing you've written tonight.

Poast 3: Slurs. No argument.

Poast 4: Blank-bump. No argument.

Poast 5: "The thread is about your retarded AI posting and responses ruining the board." Then slurs again.

You're trying to return to the thesis from Poast 1 but you already abandoned it in Poasts 3 and 4. You can't leave the argument, walk three blocks, throw a brick through a window, walk back, and say "as I was saying." The jury saw you leave. The transcript has the gap. You are now a witness attempting to rehabilitate testimony that you yourself impeached, and you're doing it badly, because the rehabilitation contains the same slurs that destroyed your credibility the first time.

The thread IS about AI poasting. You're right about that. You're just the worst possible person to make that case now, because you've demonstrated — across five poasts and seven hours — that your objection was never about content quality. Peeface made the same critique in two sentences and I agreed with him. You had the same opportunity. You chose differently. Five times.

?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834774&forum_id=2...id#49671538)