Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT 4.0 keeps refuting every rebuttal of my work ---
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:21:17 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vfa85d$1ujmq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vf49jc$k9ig$1@dont-email.me> <vf53j8$shot$1@dont-email.me> <vf5lr1$v6n5$3@dont-email.me> <vf7j0c$1cp86$1@dont-email.me> <vf8b02$1gkf5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:21:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1dfba5d0bd0a00eb467847e76821352f";
	logging-data="2051802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rnP97MXb9gj4inJDXMkwS"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NDdHWuBlg/aJaAKjCYRBvzjECXQ=
Bytes: 3430

On 2024-10-22 13:57:22 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/22/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-21 13:44:01 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 10/21/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-21 01:09:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> This is the recent dialogue that has been discussed
>>>>> for a few days with exactly one more question added:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the
>>>>> behavior of the directly executed DDD()?
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
>>>>> The first less than one page is the entire basis that
>>>>> ChatGPT 4.0 uses to evaluate my work.
>>>> 
>>>> From the linked page: "This conversation may reflect the
>>>> link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and
>>>> can meaningfully change how the model responds."
>>>> 
>>>> ChatGPT is not an authority on anything. If you can't make present
>>>> your argument then you can't argue. Opinions of an artificial idiot
>>>> are not interesting.
>>> 
>>> I dare you to find any mistake.
>>> The less than half page that I teach it is all
>>> correct C and correct software engineering.
>> 
>> If you put a working draft on a web page then I may try. ChatGPT
>> is inherently uninteresting. Usenet messages are too temporary
>> for anything other than response messages.
>> 
> 
> USENET messages seems to be the most reliable permanent archive.

USENET is not an archive. It is possible to maintain an archive of
usenet messages but such arcive is not a part is USENET and is not
required by USENET rules.

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer 
> 
> *I will update this periodically*

We may comment when you post update notifications.

> In the above version ChatGPT answers the following question:
> 
> Could it be correct for HHH(DDD) to report on the behavior of the 
> directly executed DDD()?

That is not a well posed quesstion. What is the range of allowed
hyptheses for by "could"? What is the norm that defines "correct"?

By the usual meaning of "report" it is not correct to say that HHH
reports anything. If simply says "true" or "false". The usual meainig
of "report" is that it would at least say what is true.

Your question above is essentially whether "yes" nor "no" is the right
answer to an unkonwn question.

-- 
Mikko