3 ms·

To be quite frank with you, you wouldn't be making tone arguments if you had a substantive point to make. And their use of italics is really not so different fr

To be quite frank with you, you wouldn't be making tone arguments if you had a substantive point to make. And their use of italics is really not so different from your use of a "hint" parenthetical. Reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure your real disagreement here is aesthetic. Perhaps it feels icky or touchy feely to you. And your semantic and tone arguments are reverse engineered from that perspective. But if I'm wrong I'd be interested to hear you answer GP's question.

leakycap 1y ago
Thank you for the free remote personality & aesthetic analysis. It's a rare treat to be the subject of someone reading between the lines. It sounds like you don't need anyone to answer your questions, you can just lean into that excellent internet clairvoyance you're displaying. If anything, it seems dear GP & I should be asking you to tell us more about ourselves.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- maxbond 1y ago
  The facts of the matter are that I went back and forth with you, patiently and in good faith, and tried to understand what your point was. And as you became more sarcastic, patronizing, and eventually outright insulting, I realized you simply didn't have one. You didn't like this idea on it's face and were never prepared to give it an earnest hearing. I can only speculate as to why (and no, I don't imagine I can read your mind and wouldn't be surprised to learn my speculation was incorrect). You've every right to feel that way, but I'm as disappointed in that outcome as you are. Take care and I'll see you around.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I don't think we've been talking to a person.
    - leakycap 1y ago
      Literally dehumanizing a person who doesn't agree with you always puts you in a good group of similar thinkers from history. I also enjoyed noticing how you and the person you sense agrees with you is a "we" - but I'm not a person, apparently because I wasn't swept off my feet by your eloquent arguments.
    - maxbond 1y ago
      For what it's worth, I've not yet met an LLM that both produces coherent text and will talk past you & try to get under your skin. I'm sure it could be done with an open source model and elbow grease but my read on the situation is that there's a person on the other side of the screen, who for whatever reason had some kind of mental block around this subject matter. Oh well. Wishing you unachievably bold aspirations. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, the path that is clear does not go all the way.
      - leakycap 1y ago
        This isn't about bots or mental blocks. It's about you needing everyone who disagrees with you to be defective somehow—artificial, mentally blocked, aesthetically driven, anything but right. Your fortune cookie sign-off does no justice to the work you claim to be referencing. I guess if you spend your days working with agreeable LLMs, it is very inconvenient and upsetting when a person comes along who doesn't agree and polish up every concept you espouse.
      - godelski 1y ago
        Yeah that's kinda what got me too. But whatever it writing those responses (troll or machine) is becoming less coherent as we talk more. I'm not sure if LLM but it does remind me of that part where they get stuck on something and will correct for a split second before going back to whatever they were doing. But I'm not sure, it's just weird and I'm certain the writer is not being genuine I'm not sure why they're trying to manufacture outrage but I've been seeing interactions like that appear more and more on HN.
        leakycap 1y ago
  - leakycap 1y ago
    I'm sorry, if you want an earnest hearing there's a triplicate form you need to fill out. Now you know for next time. I'm so sorry for your disappointment and hope you find a soothing corner of the internet that agrees with your worldview soonest.

leakycap 1y ago

Thank you for the free remote personality & aesthetic analysis. It's a rare treat to be the subject of someone reading between the lines. It sounds like you don't need anyone to answer your questions, you can just lean into that excellent internet clairvoyance you're displaying. If anything, it seems dear GP & I should be asking you to tell us more about ourselves.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
maxbond 1y ago
The facts of the matter are that I went back and forth with you, patiently and in good faith, and tried to understand what your point was. And as you became more sarcastic, patronizing, and eventually outright insulting, I realized you simply didn't have one. You didn't like this idea on it's face and were never prepared to give it an earnest hearing. I can only speculate as to why (and no, I don't imagine I can read your mind and wouldn't be surprised to learn my speculation was incorrect). You've every right to feel that way, but I'm as disappointed in that outcome as you are. Take care and I'll see you around.
- godelski 1y ago
  I don't think we've been talking to a person.
  - leakycap 1y ago
    Literally dehumanizing a person who doesn't agree with you always puts you in a good group of similar thinkers from history. I also enjoyed noticing how you and the person you sense agrees with you is a "we" - but I'm not a person, apparently because I wasn't swept off my feet by your eloquent arguments.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    For what it's worth, I've not yet met an LLM that both produces coherent text and will talk past you & try to get under your skin. I'm sure it could be done with an open source model and elbow grease but my read on the situation is that there's a person on the other side of the screen, who for whatever reason had some kind of mental block around this subject matter. Oh well. Wishing you unachievably bold aspirations. To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, the path that is clear does not go all the way.
    - leakycap 1y ago
      This isn't about bots or mental blocks. It's about you needing everyone who disagrees with you to be defective somehow—artificial, mentally blocked, aesthetically driven, anything but right. Your fortune cookie sign-off does no justice to the work you claim to be referencing. I guess if you spend your days working with agreeable LLMs, it is very inconvenient and upsetting when a person comes along who doesn't agree and polish up every concept you espouse.
    - godelski 1y ago
      Yeah that's kinda what got me too. But whatever it writing those responses (troll or machine) is becoming less coherent as we talk more. I'm not sure if LLM but it does remind me of that part where they get stuck on something and will correct for a split second before going back to whatever they were doing. But I'm not sure, it's just weird and I'm certain the writer is not being genuine I'm not sure why they're trying to manufacture outrage but I've been seeing interactions like that appear more and more on HN.
      - leakycap 1y ago
- leakycap 1y ago
  I'm sorry, if you want an earnest hearing there's a triplicate form you need to fill out. Now you know for next time. I'm so sorry for your disappointment and hope you find a soothing corner of the internet that agrees with your worldview soonest.