Re: ChatGPT correctly analyzed the first page of my paper:

On 10/1/2024 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/1/2024 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:

 

Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D

 [ .... ]
 

>
https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c
>

 

The above link to a ChatGPT conversation is entirely
complete with the first part being the entire input
provided to ChatGPT. The second part is the output that
ChatGPT deriving from analyzing this input.

 You are aware that programs like ChatGPT are know for "hallucinating"
non-facts?  They have even less understanding of the truth than you do.
 In fact, they tend to regurgitate whatever "facts" they are fed with.

In other words you can convince it that its analysis
of my work is incorrect. I dare you to try to do that.

It seems likely you fed ChatGPT with the same non-facts that you have
been promulgating on this newsgroup.  Quoting the output of that program
as though it were some authority is even less well founded than a proof
by quoting a real authority.
 

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer