XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-12, olcott  wrote:   
   >> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not   
   >> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]   
   >> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this   
   >> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.   
   >   
   > Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence   
   > which contradicts your set view in any matter.   
   >   
      
   Not at all. Not ever.   
      
   > Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times   
   > someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that   
   > everyon has a /personal/ bias against you.   
   >   
      
   People on these forums have only agreed with   
   me at most 1% of the time and the only case   
   besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.   
      
   You are still trying to get away with the utter   
   nonsense that once correct non-termination   
   behavior criteria have been correctly met   
   that you can try again and get a different   
   result. I would really like to think that   
   you are not a damned liar, yet no alternative   
   seems reasonably plausible.   
      
   > Anyway, that /is/ the right approach toward anything. Anything anyone   
   > says should be suspected of having a factual or logical flaw, until   
   > proven otherwise.   
   >   
      
   Not when the basis of proof requires them   
   to actually pay close attention when they   
   are utterly unwilling to do this because they   
   are so sure that I must be wrong.   
      
   > Here is an idea for you: maybe try being right 95% of the time, for a   
   > while.  Say two weeks, or a month. Instead of your usual, 95%+ wrong.   
   >   
      
   I have been completely right on the essence of   
   what I have been saying for 22 years.   
      
   > There is a human bias at play here and I will explain it to you:   
   > people are more motivated to respond when you are wrong.   
      
   OK some honesty, that it refreshing.   
      
   > If you're 80% wrong, the 0.8 fraction of your remarks that is   
   > wrong will get more engagement than the 0.2 that are right.   
   > Thus it might be that, among those of your remarks which fetch   
   > engagement, the fraction which are wrong might be amplified to   
   > something much higher, like 0.97.   
   >   
   > This is why social networking algorithms are rigged to spread   
   > rage bait: to drum up engagement.   
   >   
   > It's amazing you don't have the maturity to know all this on your own;   
   > that it has to be explained to a grown up.   
   >   
      
   It is a verified fact that I have been continually   
   correct in every essence that I have said for 22   
   continuous years.   
      
   Now I have LLM systems that show the complete details   
   of exactly how and why I am correct. If they were   
   simply "yes men" they could not possibly do this.   
      
   > Most of us here struggle not to say an incorrect thing. in a comp.*   
   > newsgroup or elsewhere, yet here you practically made a sport out of it;   
   > you say some wrong shit more times in a day than an NBA player takes a   
   > shot at the hoop.   
   >   
      
   I say things that do not conform to conventional   
   wisdom and people here don't even understand the   
   reasoning behind conventional wisdom.   
      
   When I point out the error in this reasoning people   
   here are utterly helpless. The most they can do is   
   say that I must be wrong entirely on the basis   
   that I contradict conventional wisdom.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)