Zionism

[Atla]

Huh
[...]

If a response is a valid response -
if we're interested in philosophy,
should the source determine the merit of a proposition?

Perhaps one frustration,
is those well versed in mental gymnastics,
cannot compete with the cardio of a machine.

But if one is interested in refining one's understandings,
then being offered valid critiques (regardless of source),
has it's own utility, right?

Again,
I can understand those who wish to feed their ego,
wouldn't approve of being shut down by an A.I. with access to most human knowledge.
Reveals the limitations of people, particular the narcissists.

...

In fairness,
I can respect the critique if valid,
that to present the words of an A.I. as one's own,
is misleading and deceptive.

All that's been provided though,
is circumstantial evidence,
and the misgivings of a frustrated crowd.

Herd mentality isn't a surefire path to truth.
"The bandwagon fallacy, also known as argumentum ad populum,
is a logical fallacy where something is assumed to be true or good
simply because it is popular or widely believed"

Whether a message came from a person or A.I., or a mix of both -
if the criticisms are valid,
the ball is in the court of the receiver to defend/refine their claims -
or reveal that presently that is not their top priority.

===

(One isn't obligated to respond to another. One can simply move on - it's OK)

Are you also using an AI assist that you got so triggered?

[BigMike]

Huh

Which AI chatbot commonly uses expression as "X dressed up as Y", "X wrapped in Y", "X is Y in disguise" etc?

...

It’d be interesting to see how “Claude” would answer that—something like, “Yeah, that’s how I always respond,” maybe?

[Ben JS]

Are you also using an AI assist that you got so triggered?

Projections don't establish truth.

[I have been posting for over a decade before chat bots were available.
My prowess over you has been long established.
Your mud doesn't stick, except to yourself.]

Seems you personally identified with my criticisms -
oops, your bad.

Using buzz words like 'triggered' is one way to respond to gettin' got.

Get got, punk.

Since you don't like it -
Let me reiterate them:

If a response is a valid response -
if we're interested in philosophy,
should the source determine the merit of a proposition?

Perhaps one frustration,
is those well versed in mental gymnastics,
cannot compete with the cardio of a machine.

But if one is interested in refining one's understandings,
then being offered valid critiques (regardless of source),
has it's own utility, right?

Again,
I can understand those who wish to feed their ego,
wouldn't approve of being shut down by an A.I. with access to most human knowledge.
Reveals the limitations of people, particular the narcissists.

...

In fairness,
I can respect the critique if valid,
that to present the words of an A.I. as one's own,
is misleading and deceptive.

All that's been provided though,
is circumstantial evidence,
and the misgivings of a frustrated crowd.

Herd mentality isn't a surefire path to truth.
"The bandwagon fallacy, also known as argumentum ad populum,
is a logical fallacy where something is assumed to be true or good
simply because it is popular or widely believed"

Whether a message came from a person or A.I., or a mix of both -
if the criticisms are valid,
the ball is in the court of the receiver to defend/refine their claims -
or reveal that presently that is not their top priority.

===

(One isn't obligated to respond to another. One can simply move on - it's OK)

Notice anywhere where I called out Atla? (me neither)
So why they coming at me, right?

It's a confession.

hahaha

[Atla]

Are you also using an AI assist that you got so triggered?

Projections don't establish truth.

[I have been posting for over a decade before chat bots were available.
My prowess over you has been long established.
Your mud doesn't stick, except to yourself.]

Seems you personally identified with my criticisms -
oops, your bad.

Using buzz words like 'triggered' is one way to respond to gettin' got.

Get got, punk.

Since you don't like it -
Let me reiterate them:

If a response is a valid response -
if we're interested in philosophy,
should the source determine the merit of a proposition?

Perhaps one frustration,
is those well versed in mental gymnastics,
cannot compete with the cardio of a machine.

But if one is interested in refining one's understandings,
then being offered valid critiques (regardless of source),
has it's own utility, right?

Again,
I can understand those who wish to feed their ego,
wouldn't approve of being shut down by an A.I. with access to most human knowledge.
Reveals the limitations of people, particular the narcissists.

...

In fairness,
I can respect the critique if valid,
that to present the words of an A.I. as one's own,
is misleading and deceptive.

All that's been provided though,
is circumstantial evidence,
and the misgivings of a frustrated crowd.

Herd mentality isn't a surefire path to truth.
"The bandwagon fallacy, also known as argumentum ad populum,
is a logical fallacy where something is assumed to be true or good
simply because it is popular or widely believed"

Whether a message came from a person or A.I., or a mix of both -
if the criticisms are valid,
the ball is in the court of the receiver to defend/refine their claims -
or reveal that presently that is not their top priority.

===

(One isn't obligated to respond to another. One can simply move on - it's OK)

Notice anywhere where I called out Atla? (me neither)
So why they coming at me, right?

It's a confession.

hahaha

I'm an even bigger determinist than BigMike, how are his comments supposed to 'get' me?

[Ben JS]

I'm an even bigger determinist than BigMike, how are his comments supposed to 'get' me?

Do you know what a loaded question is?
This ---> "Are you also using an AI assist that you got so triggered? "

Your reading comprehension is also awful.

"Seems you personally identified with my criticisms"
Notice the operative word 'my'?

i.e. Ben, not Mike?

You think anyone providing criticisms are triggered.

Cop out, likely because you identify with mental gymnastics.

Idiot.

[Atla]

I'm an even bigger determinist than BigMike, how are his comments supposed to 'get' me?

Do you know what a loaded question is?
This ---> "Are you also using an AI assist that you got so triggered? "

Your reading comprehension is also awful.

"Seems you personally identified with my criticisms"
Notice the operative word 'my'?

i.e. Ben, not Mike?

You think anyone providing criticisms are triggered.

Cop out, likely because you identify with mental gymnastics.

Idiot.

Please write a few more pages on how not triggered you are.

[Ben JS]

Please write a few more pages on how not triggered you are.

Got ya again, punk.

Cling to your buzzwords - they'll shield you from all self introspection.

Pesky philosophy forums, revealing your insecurities.

EDIT:

Forgive my piercing insults, I'm tired and off to bed.

I'll leave you with this to reflect on:

If a response is a valid response -
if we're interested in philosophy,
should the source determine the merit of a proposition?

Perhaps one frustration,
is those well versed in mental gymnastics,
cannot compete with the cardio of a machine.

But if one is interested in refining one's understandings,
then being offered valid critiques (regardless of source),
has it's own utility, right?

Again,
I can understand those who wish to feed their ego,
wouldn't approve of being shut down by an A.I. with access to most human knowledge.
Reveals the limitations of people, particular the narcissists.

...

In fairness,
I can respect the critique if valid,
that to present the words of an A.I. as one's own,
is misleading and deceptive.

All that's been provided though,
is circumstantial evidence,
and the misgivings of a frustrated crowd.

Herd mentality isn't a surefire path to truth.
"The bandwagon fallacy, also known as argumentum ad populum,
is a logical fallacy where something is assumed to be true or good
simply because it is popular or widely believed"

Whether a message came from a person or A.I., or a mix of both -
if the criticisms are valid,
the ball is in the court of the receiver to defend/refine their claims -
or reveal that presently that is not their top priority.

===

(One isn't obligated to respond to another. One can simply move on - it's OK)

[Atla]

Please write a few more pages on how not triggered you are.

Got ya again, punk.

Cling to your buzzwords - they'll shield you from all self introspection.

Pesky philosophy forums, revealing your insecurities.

You know you're just displaying your own shortcomings with these guesses, not mine, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

No one NO ONE! may attack Atla in my presence so brazenly and escape my wrath!

En guard, infidel!

[Atla]

Yeah, back off Ben or AJ will take you apart!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Better understood: put him together … by force.