Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper:
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 07:11:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <59bbc24379be042779cb895a64484184624dc1b4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me>
 <vdhaja$2qm1j$1@dont-email.me> <vdhhoc$2ma4$1@news.muc.de>
 <vdi0mh$2u1sn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 11:11:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="234060"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vdi0mh$2u1sn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2815
Lines: 50

On 10/1/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/1/2024 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2024 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>
>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>>>>
>>
>>> The above link to a ChatGPT conversation is entirely
>>> complete with the first part being the entire input
>>> provided to ChatGPT. The second part is the output that
>>> ChatGPT deriving from analyzing this input.
>>
>> You are aware that programs like ChatGPT are know for "hallucinating"
>> non-facts?  They have even less understanding of the truth than you do.
>>
>> In fact, they tend to regurgitate whatever "facts" they are fed with.
> 
> In other words you can convince it that its analysis
> of my work is incorrect. I dare you to try to do that.

That's simple. D Halts (since the H it calls returns) so H(D) saying it 
doesn't is just wrong.

Your arguements that try to justify a wrong answer are all based on 
trying to change definitions, proving you are just a liar that doesn't 
know what he is talking about.

The fact you refuse to actually even TRY to refute that claim just shows 
you KNOW you are wrong.

Sorry, that *IS* the facts.

> 
>> It seems likely you fed ChatGPT with the same non-facts that you have
>> been promulgating on this newsgroup.  Quoting the output of that program
>> as though it were some authority is even less well founded than a proof
>> by quoting a real authority.
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
> 
>