Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I am using AI because...
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 07:38:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d230a6f9fd697572913377d086f143c9fb97fdb5@i2pn2.org>
References: <cGk1Q.1569525$4AM6.872973@fx17.ams4>
 <6543eb5658feed2b41395c35307d2082b17d5dc0@i2pn2.org>
 <10279eq$mm0d$1@dont-email.me>
 <385f0fc9aef99162ea4f4ea810570eed760c8fd4@i2pn2.org>
 <1027usf$r7bj$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:38:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4096574"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <1027usf$r7bj$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/9/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2025 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/25 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2025 1:19 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:31:36 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>>>>
>>>>> This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as both 
>>>>> "sides"
>>>>> are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to meet in the
>>>>> middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly from Damon
>>>>> and Olcott.
>>>>> For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort
>>>>> contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do review) 
>>>>> do so
>>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anybody wants your AI posts. Please stop them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *ChatGPT Analyzes Simulating Termination Analyzer*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
>>>
>>> The advantage of AI posts is that they lack biases.
>>>
>>
>> Who says that AI has no bias?
>>
>> WHen the input prompt includes lies (like you have shown yours to), 
>> the answer is unreliable.
> 
> Yet you do not dare try and find even a single
> mistake because you know that you are totally out-gunned.
> 

Really? Then why how was I able to get your own AI prompt to admit that 
it was in error when you got it to say you were correct?

Why have I been able to point to hundereds of detailed errors, NONE of 
which have you pointed out an problem in my statement based on something 
factual or sourced from something reliable (only your own claims)

You concept of proof is to make broad unsubstantiated claims, that are 
divorced from the factual definitions of the system.

That is why you make only vague references to sources, and then need to 
paraphrase them, as you don't know what the sources actually mean.

sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.

It feels bad getting into a battle of wits with you, since you are just 
unarmed.