Lying to AI to Favor VA's Views

[Atla]

The above accusation has been thrown at me so many times and from various posters.

Hm. I doubt the veracity of this. Atla has clearly accused you of lying to the AI. That's one. I don't think I ever accused you of lying to the AI. Who else has accused you of lying to the AI?

I think you misunderstand what the AI does and how this leads to biases. But that's not the same as lying to it. In fact, it's more like the AI itself is not neutral and fully candid due to its algorithms and how they have programmed it, given it is a product they want to sell and also if people enjoy their experience of it, more will interact with it and IT will learn more. They are getting free product development if it tend to support prompters views.

Anyway, I think your statement above is false.

OK, not directly but in my opinion, it is implied.

As AI had already explained, AI will respond accordingly to the level and inputs of the user [that is what the methodology of deep learning does].
If you asked AI at kindi level, it will give you kindi level answers, that is what is going on with you, Atla and Seeds based on your understanding of Kant and the related issues.

I asked AI to teach a 3 years old about science and request it speak at 50% speed and it will respond with all sort of metaphors and stories that a 3 years old could understand which to any adult would seem like nonsense.

On issues related to Kant in the CPR, what is objective is whether the views expressed are in accordance to the whole context of the CPR not merely the earlier part of it or a portion of it.

Story:
It was P F Strawson [Analytic Philosopher] who popularized Kant because he agreed with the analytical part of the CPR and he never considered the rest of the CPR because to him they are all nonsense.
This corruption of Kant is what most of the philosophical realists like you and others are banking on, i.e. not taking the whole CPR into context when discussing the noumenon aka the thing-in-itself
If you note, AI had been pointing that the bad framing of questions related to Kant is the missing concept of 'hypostatization' in later parts plus regulative & constitutive' which appear as Appendix in the last part of the CPR.

After taking hypostatization and the regulative and the constitutive into account, and comparing Kant's philosophy to modern realisms, VA continues to blatantly lie to the chatbot, pretending that only Kant's perspective exists. And he dismisses other (non-Kantian) perspectives as kindi level nonsense on Kant. Not only is VA not the greatest philosopher of our time, he can't even hold a basic discussion.

[Iwannaplato]

True, caught my eye as well.

This kind of misrepresentation of other people's posts can be through responding as if the other person argued X, when they didn't. It can also be the kind of self-image implications like this one: a bunch of people accusing him of lying. The latter is part of a story he tells us and himself. And that story justifies, to him, I would guess, why he doesn't need to take anyone's criticisms seriously - hence all the ad homs and default primitive that accusations.

So, he oversimplified on this issue. He took what he felt was the easiest criticism of his use of AI to counter and made that the central criticism. And given he probably is not fully aware of how he rephrases things to his benefit and clearly has trouble really focusing on and reacting to the actual points made by people critical of his positions, it will seem obvious to him that he wasn't lying.

[FlashDangerpants]

It was P F Strawson [Analytic Philosopher] who popularized Kant because

Seriously?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It was P F Strawson [Analytic Philosopher] who popularized Kant because

Seriously?

Ignorant?? as usual??

It is common knowledge within Analytic Philosophy, here one reference:

Strawson and Kant is a fitting tribute to the man who has contributed more than anyone else to the rehabilitation of Kant studies in Anglophone philosophy.
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/strawson-and-kant/

I read somewhere before Strawson's 'The Bound of the Senses' specific philosophical papers related directly to Kant were not popular in Continental Philosophy and very rare within Analytic Philosophy.

[FlashDangerpants]

It was P F Strawson [Analytic Philosopher] who popularized Kant because

Seriously?

Ignorant?? as usual??

The comparatively obscure Strawson didn't popularise one of the most famous philosophers ever to have lived and who is an order of magnitude better known than himself, that's just stupid.

I've read strawson, you haven't,that fake factoid of yours is the only thing you know about him.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Seriously?

Ignorant?? as usual??

The comparatively obscure Strawson didn't popularise one of the most famous philosophers ever to have lived and who is an order of magnitude better known than himself, that's just stupid.

I've read strawson, you haven't,that fake factoid of yours is the only thing you know about him.

As stated it is common knowledge:

The Bounds of Sense had an immediate impact and continues to be extremely influential. Its interpretation of Kant quickly became a target of discussion in Kant scholarship, and Strawson returned to some issues of Kant interpretation in four essays which are collected in Strawson 1997. But it also, as Putnam remarks, ‘opened the way to a reception of Kant’s philosophy by analytic philosophers’ (Putnam 1998 in Hahn 1998, 273).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strawson/#BounSens

I have read The Bounds of Sense but had not taken it seriously since there is no such necessity.
I have relied on others who had mentioned it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ignorant?? as usual??

The comparatively obscure Strawson didn't popularise one of the most famous philosophers ever to have lived and who is an order of magnitude better known than himself, that's just stupid.

I've read strawson, you haven't,that fake factoid of yours is the only thing you know about him.

As stated it is common knowledge:

The Bounds of Sense had an immediate impact and continues to be extremely influential. Its interpretation of Kant quickly became a target of discussion in Kant scholarship, and Strawson returned to some issues of Kant interpretation in four essays which are collected in Strawson 1997. But it also, as Putnam remarks, ‘opened the way to a reception of Kant’s philosophy by analytic philosophers’ (Putnam 1998 in Hahn 1998, 273).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strawson/#BounSens

I have read The Bounds of Sense but had not taken it seriously since there is no such necessity.
I have relied on others who had mentioned it.

I have no idea what word you were looking for, but it cannot have been "popularized", everybody who read Strawson in 1966 had already read and internalised Kant years before that.

Don't lie, if all you've done is browse the contents page and convince yourself that you are so immense that you know what it's all about now, then just admit that's all you've done. Don't use a silly euphemism of 'not reading seriously'. We all know you are shit at reading even when you do try, so nobody is going to judge you any more harshly than before. We already thought you were a fool.