Re: I am using AI because...

On 6/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:19 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:31:36 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>

This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as both "sides"
are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to meet in the
middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly from Damon
and Olcott.
For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort
contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do review) do so
instead.

>
I don't think anybody wants your AI posts. Please stop them.
>

>
*ChatGPT Analyzes Simulating Termination Analyzer*
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer
>
The advantage of AI posts is that they lack biases.
>

>
Who says that AI has no bias?
>
WHen the input prompt includes lies (like you have shown yours to), the answer is unreliable.

>
Yet you do not dare try and find even a single
mistake because you know that you are totally out-gunned.
>

 Really? Then why how was I able to get your own AI prompt to admit that it was in error when you got it to say you were correct?
 

You never did this.
You have repeatedly stated that a simulation
was incorrect because a non-terminating input
was not completely simulated. You were not
even aware that no complete simulation exists
for non-terminating inputs.

Why have I been able to point to hundereds of detailed errors, NONE of which have you pointed out an problem in my statement based on something factual or sourced from something reliable (only your own claims)
 

You have never pointed out any errors.
Each time it was always only your own mistake.
Try and show me your best shot at pointing out
any mistake and I will show you where you are wrong.

You concept of proof is to make broad unsubstantiated claims, that are divorced from the factual definitions of the system.
 

My concept of proof is self-evidence.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
This does not work when people are simply too dumb
to understand.

That is why you make only vague references to sources, and then need to paraphrase them, as you don't know what the sources actually mean.
 

That you could not understand what I said does
not indicate that I made any mistake.

sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
 It feels bad getting into a battle of wits with you, since you are just unarmed.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer