The last thing someone having an argument with anyone is something incredibly knowledgeable (or at least with access to knowledge) that is inclined to agree with you.
Yes, it can be good but I suspect for many people it'd more likely lead to retrenchment rather that any real progress/compromise. Might be my own cynicism I guess.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The author did the right thing by validating the conclusions with her mother. No need to go on prompt excursions.
You didn't give me the benefit of the doubt, you broke the site guidelines by asking if I read the article. Also, I told you had the wrong interpretation, and you're just ignoring it. You're struggling to have a conversation.
Comments
The last thing someone having an argument with anyone is something incredibly knowledgeable (or at least with access to knowledge) that is inclined to agree with you.
Yes, it can be good but I suspect for many people it'd more likely lead to retrenchment rather that any real progress/compromise. Might be my own cynicism I guess.
Yes, they failed to do the experiment of telling the AI it was wrong, and seeing what text that produced.
They could probably talk it into emitting any view of their mother that they wanted.
She compared the AI interpretation to the ground truth (her mother) who validated it as correct. Did we read different articles?
We read the same article, you're just mis-interpreting my comment.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The author did the right thing by validating the conclusions with her mother. No need to go on prompt excursions.
You didn't give me the benefit of the doubt, you broke the site guidelines by asking if I read the article. Also, I told you had the wrong interpretation, and you're just ignoring it. You're struggling to have a conversation.