Re: Rockets are for fireworks - Arindam

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

The most stupid, ignorant, brainwashed presumptuous, lazy,
corruptbiased, foolish apes of the planet depend upon AI for slightly
increased erroneous understanding. A dim light in their dark worlds to
point them the wrong way. Even when they know that AI is about
billionaires squeezing them out of their miserable jobs to get richer.
 
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
 
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs who knows far better physics
than Helmholtz, Einstein, Feynman, etc.)
 
--

AI evaluation:

The text you've provided reads as a hostile and inflammatory rant
rather than a serious or constructive contribution to scientific or
philosophical discourse. Here’s a breakdown of the evaluation:
Tone and Rhetoric

    Highly aggressive: The text employs derogatory and dehumanizing
    language ("foolish apes," "stupid, ignorant, brainwashed") aimed
    at people who use AI, without evidence or nuance.

    Conspiratorial and populist: It promotes the idea that AI exists
    primarily to enrich billionaires at the expense of workers, a view
    often found in certain critical techno-skeptic narratives, but here
    it's delivered without analysis or substantiation.

    Self-aggrandizing: The author claims superior knowledge ("cyberdogs
    who knows far better physics than Helmholtz, Einstein, Feynman"),
    which comes across as boastful and detached from reasoned argument
    or evidence.

Content Quality

    Lacks substance: There are no coherent arguments, technical details,
    or philosophical reasoning. Instead, it's a tirade of unverified claims
    and emotional outbursts.

    Self-referential mythology: The "woof woof" refrain and reference
    to "celestial cyberdogs" suggest an in-joke or internal mythology
    that likely alienates rather than informs readers.

    Poor grammar and formatting: Compound adjectives are smashed together
    ("corruptbiased") and the sentence structure is erratic.

Scientific and Intellectual Value

    Nonexistent: The text doesn't advance or critique any specific
    scientific concept, theory, or application in a meaningful way.

    Anti-intellectualism: Dismissing respected physicists (Helmholtz,
    Einstein, Feynman) without any attempt at critique is a hallmark
    of pseudoscience or anti-establishment rhetoric that lacks depth.

Overall Evaluation

This text is best categorized as a polemic with elements of
pseudoscientific posturing and personal mythology, rather than a serious
or enlightening commentary on AI, physics, or society. It does not
encourage meaningful dialogue, nor does it offer any basis for
scientific or philosophical consideration.

If the intention is satire or performance art, that might alter the
context, but on its face, it reads more like an unproductive,
antagonistic screed.
-
penninojim@yahoo.com