4 ms·

My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider th

by cauch 3y ago

My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider that and to even ask. You lecture me (badly) on "what I should have written". Well, there are tons of things that you could have written. I've even said it before, I quote: > Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain. But you did not, you just "asked innocently" a question that only someone with an idea already in mind would ask. > I A-S-K-E-D What if I tell you "how old are you?" (and I will: "you're so stupid you could be a LLM" ... seriously? how old are you?). Does it mean that I did not assume anything about you? After all, I've just asked a question, it's the proof I'm not biased towards a specific hypothesis, no? Surely, by your own logic, asking "how old are you" is not implying that I consider you not very sophisticated, you should understand "maybe they think I'm young, but maybe they think I'm old and wise, they don't assume anything, as proven by the fact that they are asking a question". You could have said "people in nuclear will down-play the importance on renewables, you are saying that around you, renewables are considered as a very valid solution, but are you sure renewables are not in fact a very very valid solution, because maybe you are in a bubble dominated by people working in nuclear". Why not having asked that? You can even take more extreme examples where a person asked a foreigner person if their parents are apes, or bankers/moneylenders, or jihadists? If this person is asking an arab-looking person, why this person is, what a chance, asking if their parents are jihadists but not if their parents are bankers or part of the mafia? Do you really think the person is not assuming anything? After all, this person asked the question, so it's the proof they don't assume, right? You see, language is a tad more complex than just LLM and out-of-context word-by-word interpretation, and apparently, I understand that. I don't know (and don't care) about LLM, but, you, you certainly don't.

palata 3y ago
Natural languages are ambiguous indeed. But it does not mean that you can pick any interpretation you like and "demonstrate" anything you want from it. I won't address the rest, it makes no sense to me.
- cauch 3y ago
  And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it. You cannot say "how old are you" and then scream and cry that someone has interpreted that as a normal person will do. And I have provided all the elements that justify (even if there is a question mark, I know, amazing!) why I've interpreted the way I've interpreted. And these elements makes sense (and I know you will say "naa-ha they don't", the same way you have used logic similar to "if you don't agree with Jancovici, the only possibility is that you are an idiot"). You were lecturing me on what I should have written. But somehow, if indeed you did assume absolutely nothing, you expressed yourself incredibly badly, in a very unnatural way for someone who don't assume anything. But again, I guess you are allowed to lecture me and you are the good guy for doing so, but I should give you all the benefice of the doubt and forgive all of your bad writing, otherwise, I'm the bad guy. And I know, you are going to say "naa-ah, it was not badly written". But it cuts both way, if I cannot say what interpretations are valid and are not valid, why do you think you can? And all of this discussion does not change the fact that you are ignorant on the subject of energy generation, only come up with naive and cliché arguments, and that you focused the discussion on small elements rather than answer for all of the other aspects where indeed you cannot really answer.

by cauch 3y ago

palata 3y ago

Natural languages are ambiguous indeed. But it does not mean that you can pick any interpretation you like and "demonstrate" anything you want from it. I won't address the rest, it makes no sense to me.

cauch 3y ago
And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it. You cannot say "how old are you" and then scream and cry that someone has interpreted that as a normal person will do. And I have provided all the elements that justify (even if there is a question mark, I know, amazing!) why I've interpreted the way I've interpreted. And these elements makes sense (and I know you will say "naa-ha they don't", the same way you have used logic similar to "if you don't agree with Jancovici, the only possibility is that you are an idiot"). You were lecturing me on what I should have written. But somehow, if indeed you did assume absolutely nothing, you expressed yourself incredibly badly, in a very unnatural way for someone who don't assume anything. But again, I guess you are allowed to lecture me and you are the good guy for doing so, but I should give you all the benefice of the doubt and forgive all of your bad writing, otherwise, I'm the bad guy. And I know, you are going to say "naa-ah, it was not badly written". But it cuts both way, if I cannot say what interpretations are valid and are not valid, why do you think you can? And all of this discussion does not change the fact that you are ignorant on the subject of energy generation, only come up with naive and cliché arguments, and that you focused the discussion on small elements rather than answer for all of the other aspects where indeed you cannot really answer.