I didn't say the flaming and and hyperbole etc. is okay, obviously threats aren't okay a million times over, but saying they're all so unhinged is using the over-the-top stuff to dismiss the valid criticism, expressed in valid ways.
If I said something nasty stuff about the critics in that thread, about how they're suffering from AI derangement syndrome and the things I want to do to them, could they then use that to dismiss any criticism of them, and talk about how those AI bros are all violent lunatics? Of course not, and that goes both ways.
Fair enough, and thanks. It probably would have helped if the initial post were a more level headed (and polite) collection of regressions, maybe discussions/investigations of them, basically things that some people posted on HN and in the GH thread.
But something with a different tone got posted first, and now it all goes there. Which sucks, but using either types of comments to dismiss (or defend) the other is kind of pernicious. We don't have to "agree with one side" in bulk, in fact that is rarely correct I'd say. (I'm not saying this as if you disagree, just re-iterating I guess)
If I said something nasty stuff about the critics in that thread, about how they're suffering from AI derangement syndrome and the things I want to do to them, could they then use that to dismiss any criticism of them, and talk about how those AI bros are all violent lunatics? Of course not, and that goes both ways.