5 ms·

> I asked a pointed question - do you have the ability to answer it? I am refusing to accept your framing (being that we should discuss qualification in detail

> I asked a pointed question - do you have the ability to answer it? I am refusing to accept your framing (being that we should discuss qualification in detail) as I suspect you do not call in to question the qualifications of the authors (or the meaning of the word qualifications) when an AI paper being discussed has been written by men, rather than women. >>> What is the (comprehensive) meaning of this symbol: "qualified"? > Do you know the(?) answer to this question? Comprehensive meaning? Nope. But I don't accept that I must be able to comprehensively articulate the meaning of every word I use. I accept that the authors of the paper have enough education and experience to write a paper on this subject that is worth examination. The biggest reason I dismissed you originally is that your style of conversation is coming off to me more argumentative than anything else, and it is my experience that arguing with people on the internet is a waste of time. Plenty of people on this site treat others with respect, and reasonable people can disagree about a great many things, and so I am willing to explain my reasoning to them in detail. But when someone comes in with what seems like an argumentative state of mind, I either ignore them or make a comment that purposefully ignores their framing of the question, knowing that is a trap. > Oh my, look at all the culturally unusual fodder I have provided for you to leverage cultural norms against! I did my best to make it irresistible. This is a great example of argumentative style that I personally will just ignore. > we are on your, and Dang's, and YCombinator's turf - you can literally declare victory at any time, and win! More evidence, in my opinion, that you are viewing this not as a respectful conversation between reasonable people, but some weird kind of internet battle field. I literally don't give a shit about winning, so your assumptions about my motivations are flawed and this explains why you find my response confusing.

mistermann 3y ago
> I don't accept that I must be able to comprehensively articulate the meaning of every word I use. Did I claim that you are obligated to? You certainly don't need to be able to. Worse, you may not even be able to see the benefit of a species using language that is highly and consistently understandable (as is common in science, engineering, law, etc). Let's hope there aren't any negative consequences from this ideology, which seems to be a cultural norms, supported by the vast majority of people across most any ideology ("pendants" being an exception - for fun, look up the meaning of that word in the dictionary). Say, what's your stance on climate change, and the various wars The Humans have going on?

mistermann 3y ago

> I don't accept that I must be able to comprehensively articulate the meaning of every word I use. Did I claim that you are obligated to? You certainly don't need to be able to. Worse, you may not even be able to see the benefit of a species using language that is highly and consistently understandable (as is common in science, engineering, law, etc). Let's hope there aren't any negative consequences from this ideology, which seems to be a cultural norms, supported by the vast majority of people across most any ideology ("pendants" being an exception - for fun, look up the meaning of that word in the dictionary). Say, what's your stance on climate change, and the various wars The Humans have going on?