> If you were arguing in good faith, you'd head directly there instead of lampooning the use of a marketing page in a discussion. Which part of the paper suppo

> If you were arguing in good faith, you'd head directly there instead of lampooning the use of a marketing page in a discussion. Which part of the paper supports the "models have a world model, reasoning, etc." and not what I said, "in our training data similar concepts were clustered with some other similar concepts, and manipulating these clusters lead to different outcomes"?