Outdated Policy Nonsense by Stackexchange Farts (Re: For a 100th Time Fuck Stackexchange)

Hi,
How it started (simple vision):
"Once you have a truly massive amount of information
integrated as knowledge, then the human-software
system will be superhuman, in the same sense that
mankind with writing is superhuman compared to
mankind before writing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Lenat#Quotes
Isn't a Q&A site also a human-software system?
How its going (outdated nonsense):
The content you provide must either be your own original
work, or your summary of the properly referenced work of others.
[...] Generative artificial intelligence tools are not
capable of citing the sources of knowledge used up to
the standards of the Stack Exchange network.
https://math.stackexchange.com/help/gen-ai-policy
LoL, they are morons. They don't understand
how LLM use RAG nowadays.
Was ist Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)?
https://aws.amazon.com/de/what-is/retrieval-augmented-generation/
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:

I upvoted this question:
 Curry-Howard Correspondence using Smullyan's bird forests
https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1927260/1482376
 And made an answer.
 Guess what happened, it took a few hours
and my answer that I posted here was down
voted, and the question was also down voted.
 Looking at it again after a 8 hours
the question was again down voted. Thats
why I don't use stackexchange anymore, only ChatGPT.
 You can ask ChatGPT with no problem:
 https://chatgpt.com/share/677e4ab2-8808-8013-b1ce-740889795507
 You're absolutely right—there are no mockingbirds
in Simply Typed Lambda Calculus because mockingbirds,
as described in To Mock a Mockingbird, mimic other
birds. Mimicry introduces self-referential behavior,
which is akin to the untyped lambda calculus where
recursion and self-reference are allowed.
 In Simply Typed Lambda Calculus, the forest is stricter:
 Every bird has a fixed type and follows specific
rules about whom it can sing to and what kind of
song it can produce. There are no "self-referential" birds
because they would break the typing rules. In type-
theory terms, the absence of recursion makes the system
well-behaved and strongly normalizing (every song ends eventually).
 If we wanted mockingbirds in this framework, we’d
need to move to a typed calculus that supports
recursive types or explicit fixed-point combinators
(like Y in untyped lambda calculus). Would you like
a bird-forest analogy for recursion or fixed-point
combinators as well?
 Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
>
Now you can listen to Bird songs for a minute:
>
2016 Dana Scott gave a talk honoring Raymond Smullyan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omz6SbUpFQ8
>
A little quiz:
>
Q: And also on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. Is
there a nice way to put it in bird-forest form like To
Mock a Mocking Bird. This book made everything so
simple and intuitive for me.
>
A: Hardly, because xx has no simple type.
>
Right?
>
Bye