First thing is to separate out the term AI from LLM's.

AI as a term encompasses many different technologies, some going back decades, a lot of which is used all over the place.
What we're hearing a lot about right now are LLM's and the surrounding ecosystem.

To answer the question though, yes, they can be used to produce output that fits a use case.
Whether or not it's the best tool for the job is subjective, even in the cases where it's technically viable.

There is a lot of bias and a lot of arguments for both sides.

You'd probably be best served by reading around a bit and figuring out how you feel about it.

You're unlikely to get an unbiased discussion from a single source, especially here.
I'm not excluding myself , I'm bias AF.

The technology is interesting, the industrial implementation is an environmental and societal catastrophe.

So like a harm reduction thing?

from which dialect is "did you born" ?

There can be vast differences in reading comprehension and contextual tone recognition.

As an easy example think of the many degrees of neurodivergency.

Secondly, British sarcasm and indeed a lot of British communication in general comes from the intention to be deliberately vague, so as to bake plausible deniability in to the responses given.

It can be inferred, but it's not a guarantee.

That being said this guy seems to just be a prick trying to walk back something that blew up in his face.

genuine question.

I was of the impression that one of the major selling points of de-federated services such as this was to not have to engage in circumvention to get around policies and rules that you don't agree with.

If you don't agree with the administration of an instance then don't use that instance (or start your own and de-federate that instance i suppose).

Dialogue about the policies and subjective opinion makes sense, if that's how you want to engage, but the somewhat decentralised nature of the fediverse make someone power tripping as an admin on an instance is easy enough to avoid by just not engaging.

More succinctly , why would you want to expend effort to be part of an instance that foundationally doesn't align with your values.

To put it another way, a mod doing their utmost to create an echo chamber of their liking (no matter how distasteful that liking might be) is allowable within the bounds of how this was all designed, the system working as intended.

Whereas creating multiple accounts to avoid bans, while technically possible, seems kind of outside of the intended process.

I could be very wrong about how all this works however, as my grasp of the intricacies is somewhat shallow.

I like to think of it as a large list of granular, contextual rpg stats.

"You get an average 6 for concentration while in a quiet room between 15-20 deg c. Assuming you've not taken more than 10 points of psychic damage in the last 3 hours and are well rested."

They are, in theory, comparing your scores in a set of somewhat defined contexts to see if , overall, it's causing you problems that might be helped in someway by a treatment that has worked for other people who have similar scores in the same set of criteria.

That sentence being so full of caveats is why I think diagnosis is hard for this sort of thing.

See, now that's a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I'm disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it's entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as "Did you even read the initial tweet?".

Well... it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven't read your response in it's entirety.

Have you played all of the FFT games?

There's the original playstation one and the re-release war of the lions (which are fundamentally the same game)

There's also the gameboy advance title FFT:A and FFT:A2 for the DS.

Easy enough to run an emulator to play them and they play well.

You probably want to keep to DM's if you don't want conversation on a public message board.

Though I suppose a demonstrated lack of understanding of how public message boards work gives me my answer so, thanks.

The guardian is three tabloids in a trenchcoat.

They don't generally outright lie, but unbiased journalism it is not.

To be clear, the interview was a shitshow, I'm just saying you'll need to manage your expectations about journalistic quality when reading the guardian.

Do you have an example of this ?

Here is one example

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I mean you can just find in page for "United States"

Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.

The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.

I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we've skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.

I'll just assume you don't have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.

Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.

edit: added answer to your question