Israel-Hamas War 2023

[DGuller]

I'm not reading that. Why you, of all people, would think a statistical model would be a good tool to use to parse a philosophical argument.

Because I, of all people, think that it would be?  Also, "I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions." is not exactly the deepest work of philosophy produced by a human.

That's the stupidest thing ever said on Languish.

What's breathtaking is the sheer amount of lack of curiosity.  You actually concede that I have at least some authority to evaluate what a statistical model can and can't do, and yet you seem to completely dismiss the possibility that I may have an insight that you don't.

[HVC]

Dguller you think playing with your toy makes you look clever. It doesn't, it makes you look petulant and childish. Also, for someone who often  touts his own intelligence and clarity of thought this little thing you do is intellectually lazy. feel free to reply with chatGPT, I don't really expect much more from you when you act like this.

[Razgovory]

I wonder why the Hamas leadership were such assholes to the children of Gaza.

Because dead children win support over seas. 

And because Hamas knew they could count on the Israeli government to cooperate in creating large numbers of dead Gazan children.

This is the part I don't think you are seeing. There is a symbiotic relationship between Hamas and the Netanyahu coalition.  They each feed on the outrages of the other.

One day Netanyahu will be gone, but Hamas will remain.  If the Labor party was in power in Israel they still would have launched Oct 7th, and it's likely Israel would have responded the same way.  How would the US respond to something like that?  Even under Biden.  It would be bombing, followed by troops invading.

[DGuller]

Dguller you think playing with your toy makes you look clever. It doesn't, it makes you look petulant and childish. Also, for someone who often  touts his own intelligence and clarity of thought this little thing you do is intellectually lazy. feel free to reply with chatGPT, I don't really expect much more from you when you act like this.

There is nothing intellectually stimulating about repeatedly having to demolish gross misrepresentation of what you said, it actually gets very tiring and discourages being thoughtful.  It's even more discouraging when you have plenty of people willing to jump on you for quoting an AI, and exactly zero people jumping on someone arguing in breathtakingly bad faith.

As far as looking clever, he's one thing that definitely makes you not look that:  calling ChatGPT a toy.  You don't have to like it, you don't have to not feel threatened by it or by what it portends about the future, but if you think it's still a toy in 2025, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

[crazy canuck]

You're right it is definitely not a toy. It is a destructive piece of technology that allows its users to delude themselves into believing that it gives them answers they can rely upon.

[HVC]

Dguller you think playing with your toy makes you look clever. It doesn't, it makes you look petulant and childish. Also, for someone who often  touts his own intelligence and clarity of thought this little thing you do is intellectually lazy. feel free to reply with chatGPT, I don't really expect much more from you when you act like this.

There is nothing intellectually stimulating about repeatedly having to demolish gross misrepresentation of what you said, it actually gets very tiring and discourages being thoughtful.  It's even more discouraging when you have plenty of people willing to jump on you for quoting an AI, and exactly zero people jumping on someone arguing in breathtakingly bad faith.

As far as looking clever, he's one thing that definitely makes you not look that:  calling ChatGPT a toy.  You don't have to like it, you don't have to not feel threatened by it or by what it portends about the future, but if you think it's still a toy in 2025, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

it's a toy if you use it as a toy. a sword can kill and is a weapon if used in the manner intended. If someone takes that same sword and waves it around going "whoosh whoosh" while dancing around it becomes a toy. that's what you're doing.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with DeepChat. 

[DGuller]

it's a toy if you use it as a toy. a sword can kill and is a weapon if used in the manner intended. If someone takes that same sword and waves it around going "whoosh whoosh" while dancing around it becomes a toy. that's what you're doing.

I'm not using it as a toy.  My main use of it is behind the scenes.  Every post I write is entirely in my words and my thoughts, unless I'm quoting an AI, but sometimes I run what I intend to post by it.  I want to make sure that I correctly interpreted what I'm replying to, and that I'm making a sound argument in response.

In this case, when I'm quoting it, I'm using it essentially as an arbiter when I think a foul needs to be called.  When you thoughtfully lay out an argument and someone engages you in really bad faith, it gets really tiring to engage in a long sequence of claims and counterclaims.  It's also not even a debate at this stage, so really nothing is lost by having an impartial AI point out what frankly other posters here should've pointed out.

[Grey Fox]

I'm not reading that. Why you, of all people, would think a statistical model would be a good tool to use to parse a philosophical argument.

Because I, of all people, think that it would be?  Also, "I had no idea a pragmatic perspective could lead one to such ridiculous conclusions." is not exactly the deepest work of philosophy produced by a human.

That's the stupidest thing ever said on Languish.

What's breathtaking is the sheer amount of lack of curiosity.  You actually concede that I have at least some authority to evaluate what a statistical model can and can't do, and yet you seem to completely dismiss the possibility that I may have an insight that you don't.

That's fair. I did dismiss it but not because of you but because LLMs are poor implementations of AI capabilities. My judgement of Chat GPT is already completed and I dismiss almost all use of it as bad.

With that said when AI is concerned I know too much while not knowing enough. It's disconcerting.

[The Minsky Moment]

Okay, due to sheer amount of bad faith involved on your part, I'll again let ChatGPT handle it, rather than waste any of my own effort on writing something that would surely be grossly misrepresented.

ChatGPT gave you three options to respond but you didn't use either.
Instead you chose an option not recommended, namely block quote the ChatGPT response.
Which caused people to focus on the method of delivery rather than what you were trying to say thus defeating the point

I'm skeptical of the value of ChatGPT for this purpose
By if you feel differently, why use it and then not follow what it says?
Asking out of curiosity

[DGuller]

ChatGPT gave you three options to respond but you didn't use either.
Instead you chose an option not recommended, namely block quote the ChatGPT response.
Which caused people to focus on the method of delivery rather than what you were trying to say thus defeating the point

I'm skeptical of the value of ChatGPT for this purpose
By if you feel differently, why use it and then not follow what it says?
Asking out of curiosity

Two reasons. 

First of all, I never let ChatGPT form my response.  In this case, because I didn't ask it for feedback on my reply, but rather asked it for its take on Valmy's post before I even composed anything, it assumed that I was asking it for advice on how to respond.  In fact, I just asked it to interpret Valmy's post, to see if its evaluation would be the same as mine.  It was in fact the same:  Valmy's post was an extreme misrepresentation of what I said, and was in general not a good faith attempt to have a discussion.

Now that I had a confirmation that Valmy had no intention of arguing in good faith, and that I wasn't being dense due to being caught up in the heat of the argument, I had no interest in spending any energy composing a reply.  Nothing is more tedious and futile than going back and forth for ten replies just to keep arguing against words being put in your mouth.  However, I was fed up sufficiently to call him for his manner of "debating", and so I just pasted ChatGPTs evaluation.

[Valmy]

Now that I had a confirmation that Valmy had no intention of arguing in good faith, and that I wasn't being dense due to being caught up in the heat of the argument, I had no interest in spending any energy composing a reply.  Nothing is more tedious and futile than going back and forth for ten replies just to keep arguing against words being put in your mouth.  However, I was fed up sufficiently to call him for his manner of "debating", and so I just pasted ChatGPTs evaluation.

Jesus Christ man. I just thought your point was bad. And also seemed out of line with your previous positions. I am obviously an idiot but you know this from decades of being my internet friend.

I don't see what I did to justify this kind of assault on my character and that I am a person of bad faith or had some kind of sinister motive.

And apparently you think I am a dishonest actor, not even worth talking to. I admit I have been in a bad place recently with all that is going on.

Glad I am going on vacation then. Probably been here too long. Maybe I will get myself sorted out.

Anyway, sorry man. I assure you I wasn't acting out of bad faith. Sometimes my brain reads stuff that is different from what is written.

[Sophie Scholl]

*complains about words being put in his mouth*
*uses chatgpt to put something else's words in his mouth*
????
Profit!
 

[DGuller]

*complains about words being put in his mouth*
*uses chatgpt to literally put something else's words in his mouth*
????
Profit!
 

Am I putting your words in my mouth by quoting you right here?