The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[malkie]

Something about your reply has been niggling at me, in the back of my mind, all day, and I think I now see why.

Your reply to my comment - a small part of which you quoted and responded to - looks to me very like a pattern of response that I've seen before from my children, from my students, and from a number of adults, regrettably myself included. If you ask me to, I'll describe the pattern, and explain how I think it applies here. However, since you are a parent, a teacher, and an adult, I believe that my alluding to a pattern and indicating that what's quoted above seems to fit should be enough. I think that you will also understand why I'm pushing this, although you may not like it.

OTOH, if you've never experienced this pattern before, I have to think that you've led a very sheltered life

So I'm asking you to go back to my previous comment and respond to all of it, point by point, not just the small part that you already replied to. If it makes it any easier for you, I'll repeat the comment in full with breaks where I insert "[MG - please respond here]".

I hope you get a response.

I hope so too. If I do, I'll happily explain the pattern, if MG needs me to do so.

If not, I'll go ahead and make some assumptions, and invite MG to set me straight if necessary.

[Marcus]

I hope you get a response.

I hope so too. If I do, I'll happily explain the pattern, if MG needs me to do so.

If not, I'll go ahead and make some assumptions, and invite MG to set me straight if necessary.

Good.

I saw your note about Stem, i don't know anything, but i would be interested to hear any news also. We had some fun conversations a couple years back.

[malkie]

I hope so too. If I do, I'll happily explain the pattern, if MG needs me to do so.

If not, I'll go ahead and make some assumptions, and invite MG to set me straight if necessary.

Good.

I saw your note about Stem, i don't know anything, but i would be interested to hear any news also. We had some fun conversations a couple years back.

I remember StemElbow - I think that was his first username - as a defender, and as being pretty tough without being offensive. I think that he eventually softened his stance, and may have become a bit critical, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly.

[Marcus]

Good.

I saw your note about Stem, i don't know anything, but i would be interested to hear any news also. We had some fun conversations a couple years back.

I remember StemElbow - I think that was his first username - as a defender, and as being pretty tough without being offensive. I think that he eventually softened his stance, and may have become a bit critical, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly.

I think that's correct. By the time I interacted with him, he seemed to be that way, but when his history was referred to I went back and read some of his early posts-- he did seem to have changed, significantly so on some topics.

[malkie]

I said a few days ago that I intended to pursue answers from MG related to a pattern I thought I had observed in one of his comments. This comment is my first attempt to do so. A later comment will contain the description of the pattern, and, if necessary, an explanation how MG's comment fits the pattern.

Generally I try not to interact directly with MG for reasons that I've noted before. In this case I just don't feel like letting things slide.

=============

...

As far as I could tell, nobody, apart from perhaps yourself, needed you to tighten things up, or to provide a definition for "link".

And, by the way, you're still wrong: More information is not always better than less. As an illustration, just look at some of the AI material you've posted without, apparently, having much of a clue what it meant. Actually, perhaps I should take back that particular example - it has provided further evidence that while you may read and approve everything AI-generated that you post, your lack of understanding shows that your approval is meaningless. Add this to the reasons that some folks "apparently aren't even reading [your] posts".

Essentially your pseudo expertise in actually/assuming knowing what my level of understanding is when it comes to one thing or another disqualifies your criticism from the get go. That's like me making a pronouncement/assumption for all the world to see that you "lack understanding". Whether or not that's true, I don't think I've done that.

Secondly, you have no idea who is or isn't reading my posts. Apparently some are. You included.

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said. Very infrequently have posters actually engaged with the substance. More often than not it's, "AI! Aargh!!" It's AI!!.

A few days ago you were asked if you could explain certain statements you copied from an AI response - you gave no explanation. I believe that that is because you were not able to do so - at least, not without help, and certainly not at the time you posted it. But if you're telling me, in all honesty, that you understand everything that is in your AI-generated comments, then I will withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me. I'm definitely a long way from understanding a lot of these comments - mea culpa.
[#1 MG - please respond here] Are/Were you able to "explain certain statements you copied from an AI response", without help, at the time you posted them? Including the statements that you later said were above your paygrade?
[#2 MG - please respond here] Are you saying I should withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me?

Secondly, you have no idea who is or isn't reading my posts. Apparently some are. You included.

You are the one that complained that people weren't reading your posts, not me. I didn't make the assertion - I only referred to your complaint. So which is it - folks "apparently aren't even reading [your] posts", or they are?
[#3 MG - please respond here] Apart from responding to your complaint, did I claim to know who is or isn't reading your posts?

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said. Very infrequently have posters actually engaged with the substance. More often than not it's, "AI! Aargh!!" It's AI!!.

[#4 MG - please respond here] When you use AI, do you "proofread it and stand behind what is being said"? More to the point, do you understand it enough such that your standing behind what is being said is meaningful?
If you say so. But I'm confused - are we back to folks "apparently [not] even reading [your] posts"?

I suppose I should feel bad that I seem to have forced you to make that concession, but you have doubled down on your "I approve = I understand" often enough that I was interested to see if you would do it again. Dastardly, right?
[#5 MG - please respond here] Do you still maintain that, for you, "I approve = I understand" when you use AI-generated material?
...

[MG 2.0]

Generally I try not to interact directly with MG for reasons that I've noted before. In this case I just don't feel like letting things slide.

I've lost interest/track in wherever you were going with this. I think I will let it slide.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I said a few days ago that I intended to pursue answers from MG related to a pattern I thought I had observed in one of his comments. This comment is my first attempt to do so. A later comment will contain the description of the pattern, and, if necessary, an explanation how MG's comment fits the pattern.

Generally I try not to interact directly with MG for reasons that I've noted before. In this case I just don't feel like letting things slide.

=============

...

As far as I could tell, nobody, apart from perhaps yourself, needed you to tighten things up, or to provide a definition for "link".

And, by the way, you're still wrong: More information is not always better than less. As an illustration, just look at some of the AI material you've posted without, apparently, having much of a clue what it meant. Actually, perhaps I should take back that particular example - it has provided further evidence that while you may read and approve everything AI-generated that you post, your lack of understanding shows that your approval is meaningless. Add this to the reasons that some folks "apparently aren't even reading [your] posts".

Essentially your pseudo expertise in actually/assuming knowing what my level of understanding is when it comes to one thing or another disqualifies your criticism from the get go. That's like me making a pronouncement/assumption for all the world to see that you "lack understanding". Whether or not that's true, I don't think I've done that.

Secondly, you have no idea who is or isn't reading my posts. Apparently some are. You included.

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said. Very infrequently have posters actually engaged with the substance. More often than not it's, "AI! Aargh!!" It's AI!!.

A few days ago you were asked if you could explain certain statements you copied from an AI response - you gave no explanation. I believe that that is because you were not able to do so - at least, not without help, and certainly not at the time you posted it. But if you're telling me, in all honesty, that you understand everything that is in your AI-generated comments, then I will withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me. I'm definitely a long way from understanding a lot of these comments - mea culpa.
[#1 MG - please respond here] Are/Were you able to "explain certain statements you copied from an AI response", without help, at the time you posted them? Including the statements that you later said were above your paygrade?
[#2 MG - please respond here] Are you saying I should withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me?
You are the one that complained that people weren't reading your posts, not me. I didn't make the assertion - I only referred to your complaint. So which is it - folks "apparently aren't even reading [your] posts", or they are?
[#3 MG - please respond here] Apart from responding to your complaint, did I claim to know who is or isn't reading your posts?

[#4 MG - please respond here] When you use AI, do you "proofread it and stand behind what is being said"? More to the point, do you understand it enough such that your standing behind what is being said is meaningful?
If you say so. But I'm confused - are we back to folks "apparently [not] even reading [your] posts"?

I suppose I should feel bad that I seem to have forced you to make that concession, but you have doubled down on your "I approve = I understand" often enough that I was interested to see if you would do it again. Dastardly, right?
[#5 MG - please respond here] Do you still maintain that, for you, "I approve = I understand" when you use AI-generated material?
...

I'm guessing "I've lost interest in this" fits right in to the pattern you are describing.

[malkie]

Generally I try not to interact directly with MG for reasons that I've noted before. In this case I just don't feel like letting things slide.

I've lost interest/track in wherever you were going with this. I think I will let it slide.

Regards,
MG

As I expected. I will answer on your behalf, giving my opinions and impressions. If I opine incorrectly, feel free to correct me. Or not.

[malkie]

Unfortunately, due to the limit on quote nesting levels on this board, some context has not carried over, and I'm currently too tired/lazy to go back and fix everything. I hope the following will be comprehensible without some of the details here & there.

Generally I try not to interact directly with MG for reasons that I've noted before. In this case I just don't feel like letting things slide.

I've lost interest/track in wherever you were going with this. I think I will let it slide.
Regards,
MG

As I expected. I will answer on your behalf, giving my opinions and impressions. If I opine incorrectly, feel free to correct me. Or not.

Here's the followup with [my opinions] .

I said a few days ago that I intended to pursue answers from MG related to a pattern I thought I had observed in one of his comments. This comment is my first attempt to do so. A later comment will contain the description of the pattern, and, if necessary, an explanation how MG's comment fits the pattern.

Generally I try not to interact directly with MG for reasons that I've noted before. In this case I just don't feel like letting things slide.

=============

...

As far as I could tell, nobody, apart from perhaps yourself, needed you to tighten things up, or to provide a definition for "link".

And, by the way, you're still wrong: More information is not always better than less. As an illustration, just look at some of the AI material you've posted without, apparently, having much of a clue what it meant. Actually, perhaps I should take back that particular example - it has provided further evidence that while you may read and approve everything AI-generated that you post, your lack of understanding shows that your approval is meaningless. Add this to the reasons that some folks "apparently aren't even reading [your] posts".

Essentially your pseudo expertise in actually/assuming knowing what my level of understanding is when it comes to one thing or another disqualifies your criticism from the get go. That's like me making a pronouncement/assumption for all the world to see that you "lack understanding". Whether or not that's true, I don't think I've done that.

Secondly, you have no idea who is or isn't reading my posts. Apparently some are. You included.

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said. Very infrequently have posters actually engaged with the substance. More often than not it's, "AI! Aargh!!" It's AI!!.

A few days ago you were asked if you could explain certain statements you copied from an AI response - you gave no explanation. I believe that that is because you were not able to do so - at least, not without help, and certainly not at the time you posted it. But if you're telling me, in all honesty, that you understand everything that is in your AI-generated comments, then I will withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me. I'm definitely a long way from understanding a lot of these comments - mea culpa.
[#1 MG - please respond here] Are/Were you able to "explain certain statements you copied from an AI response", without help, at the time you posted them? Including the statements that you later said were above your paygrade?
[#1 malkie's opinion] I continue to believe that the reason that MG has not explained AI responses when asked is that he realized he could not do so. He ignored the request rather than admit that.
When I referred to MG's "lack of understanding" I was not just assuming what his level of understanding was. My statement was based on MG's own admissions - no need for me to assume. Also, no need for MG to imply that I'm claiming "expertise", "pseudo" or otherwise.
[#2 MG - please respond here] Are you saying I should withdraw my comment and ask you to forgive me?
[#2 malkie's opinion] In a later partial reply (viewtopic.php?p=2924048#p2924048) MG said: "The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.". My statement was accurate, so there is no need for me to withdraw my comment and ask for forgiveness for it.

You are the one that complained that people weren't reading your posts, not me. I didn't make the assertion - I only referred to your complaint. So which is it - folks "apparently aren't even reading [your] posts", or they are?
[#3 MG - please respond here] Apart from responding to your complaint, did I claim to know who is or isn't reading your posts?
[#3 malkie's opinion] No! But I'd still like to know if folks "apparently aren't even reading [MG's] posts".

[#4 MG - please respond here] When you use AI, do you "proofread it and stand behind what is being said"? More to the point, do you understand it enough such that your standing behind what is being said is meaningful?
[#4 malkie's opinion] This "proofread it and stand behind what is being said" claim is a blanket smokescreen. It's clear that there have been occasions when MG has posted AI content that he does not understand, so his claim to "stand behind it" is meaningless.
...

I suppose I should feel bad that I seem to have forced you to make that concession, but you have doubled down on your "I approve = I understand" often enough that I was interested to see if you would do it again. Dastardly, right?
[#5 MG - please respond here] Do you still maintain that, for you, "I approve = I understand" when you use AI-generated material?
[#5 malkie's opinion] As before, I believe that MG's approval of AI material should not be taken to imply that he understands it at all. I think we've all seen MG post AI material that he has demonstrated beyond doubt that he does not understand - over and over again.
...

When discussing quoting from sources with my students, I have tried to ensure that they "get" this point: unless you can credibly paraphrase or summarize what you plan to quote, do not use the quote, however good, or clever, or impactful it may seem. If I ask you to explain a quote you've used in an essay, and you are unable to do so, you'll lose marks.

I believe that the same "rule" should apply to quoting material generated by an AI.

[Gadianton]

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said.

How can you claim that you proofread the output of an AI on topics you admit openly you don't understand?

If I ask an AI to evaluate the reasonbleness of a debate between string theorists, how would I proofread it since I don't know anything about string theory?