home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 58,247 of 59,235   
   olcott to Kaz Kylheku   
   Re: Rejecting expressions of formal lang   
   12 Nov 25 22:43:06   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-13, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-12, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Even now, in this post.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> 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   
   >>>   
   >>> 1% is much larger than zero.   
   >>>   
   >>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.   
   >>>   
   >>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's   
   >>> all you get.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You are not following the actual reasoning of the   
   >> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong.   
   >> That is not you pointing out an error.   
   >   
   > That's what you did to my code.   
   >   
      
   Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion   
   stops when you monkey with it.   
      
   > I'm categorically rejecting your paper because it   
   > is AI slop that takes /zero/ effort to generate,   
   > but /nonzero/ effort to go through and validate.   
   >   
      
   You cannot show evidence of that.   
   Do you know what a cycle in the directed graph of   
   the evaluation sequence of a formal expression is?   
      
   Mikko didn't have a clue and claimed that I am   
   wrong anyway.   
      
   --   
   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)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca