[ToValueFunfetti]

I'd think the problem with fanboys is that they don't care about the truth of the underlying arguments. They just want to score points for their team. Do you have a different issue with them? If not, why not engage with the arguments yourself?

[eloisius]

I know from reflecting on my own beliefs now compared with 10-15 years past that one's beliefs can change, and I don't want to be so cynical as to say that these fanboys don't actually believe what they are saying and only want to score points. I'm sure there's a great deal of commentary that is astroturf, but I think there are plenty of (hopefully young and naive) techno-optimists who sincerely think companies like Anthropic can do no wrong and only move humanity forward, or something like that.

In any case, online debate is not always about changing the mind of the single person you engaged with. To some degree, its performative debate so that other readers may be influenced by your ideas.

[ToValueFunfetti]

To be clear, I'm not saying that they don't believe what they say, just that they don't evaluate arguments critically. It's easy to agree with every argument that supports your existing position, but it's a recipe for disaster and they should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

>To some degree, its performative debate

No offense intended, and I'm certainly guilty of this myself at times, but this is a pretty gross way to talk to other people. It's certainly antisocial on the individual level and I think it's also pretty destructive on the community level- I look to Twitter as a case study here, which flipped from a left to a right-wing echo chamber without ever touching anything in between, which I blame on the design, algorithm, and culture being built around performance. Dunks are not truth-seeking behavior, but they perform very well.