Anonymous
6/24/2025, 12:26:48 PM
No.24492257
>>24492205
>your monopoly on sounding smart.
If only you sounded smart. This post was devoid of substance as well. The point also isn't that LLMs cheapen discourse, it is that it eliminates it entirely. I am not talking to you, I am talking to a formula that is predicting what the most likely response is given some set of pre-baked parameters and your copy-pasted request. Ask your LLM to give a genuine and thoughtful refutation rather than a series of thoughtless and unsubstantiated claims.
>>24492208
Not really. If you weren't an imbecile, you would have realized that the "simple criticism" was already addressed:
>"it didn't produce",
Hinging one's beliefs on unverifiable truths is not that exceptional. It is common, for instance, to base one's systems on the premise that one can "know" reality. One might raise an exception—that most atheists do not believe anything is real but only tacitly accept it for expedience. Rather than being based on the unverifiable, all systems, such as philosophy, are rather based on nothing. There is no supremacy in either, although the latter loses the right to speak at all. (if only that he is always saying nothing, and that every statement he makes can be prefaced with: "My beliefs are meaningless, they are not good, and there is no reason to do or believe anything I say unless it is useful to you") You further assume that only what is empirically falsifiable is worthy of inquiry, when much of discourse is motivated by that which is unempirical. Theological beliefs are motivated by these unfalsiable axioms, but they evolve and adapt to the changes in theological or natural understanding like any philosophy.
Though you call it "metastasization" without qualification, theology does evolve and has very clearly evolved throughout time. The new crux of your argument is that what separates the "bad" systems from the "good" in this case is that some beliefs founded on unverifiable premises (e.g., Vedanta) evolve while another "metastasizes". The reason your LLM was inclined to say this is because of these three statements I made:
>"it's bad", "it didn't produce", or "it isn't real"
It predicted that I was about to eliminate the ethical, pragmatic, and epistemic arguments that your posts very tritely and shallowly referenced. You should beg your LLM to elaborate on what makes theology metastasize where Buddhism or some philosophies simply "evolve".
The rest of your post can be very clearly understood here:
>And the fact that you need me to churn out a thousand-word essay to validate something so basic only proves how addicted you are to performance over clarity.
Where you forget that your very particular worldview is also founded on these thousand-word performative essays, filtered down to you from reddit comments and youtube videos. Rational understanding is generally not founded on unsubstantiated, inane aphorisms delivered thoughtlessly from a corporate webpage.
>your monopoly on sounding smart.
If only you sounded smart. This post was devoid of substance as well. The point also isn't that LLMs cheapen discourse, it is that it eliminates it entirely. I am not talking to you, I am talking to a formula that is predicting what the most likely response is given some set of pre-baked parameters and your copy-pasted request. Ask your LLM to give a genuine and thoughtful refutation rather than a series of thoughtless and unsubstantiated claims.
>>24492208
Not really. If you weren't an imbecile, you would have realized that the "simple criticism" was already addressed:
>"it didn't produce",
Hinging one's beliefs on unverifiable truths is not that exceptional. It is common, for instance, to base one's systems on the premise that one can "know" reality. One might raise an exception—that most atheists do not believe anything is real but only tacitly accept it for expedience. Rather than being based on the unverifiable, all systems, such as philosophy, are rather based on nothing. There is no supremacy in either, although the latter loses the right to speak at all. (if only that he is always saying nothing, and that every statement he makes can be prefaced with: "My beliefs are meaningless, they are not good, and there is no reason to do or believe anything I say unless it is useful to you") You further assume that only what is empirically falsifiable is worthy of inquiry, when much of discourse is motivated by that which is unempirical. Theological beliefs are motivated by these unfalsiable axioms, but they evolve and adapt to the changes in theological or natural understanding like any philosophy.
Though you call it "metastasization" without qualification, theology does evolve and has very clearly evolved throughout time. The new crux of your argument is that what separates the "bad" systems from the "good" in this case is that some beliefs founded on unverifiable premises (e.g., Vedanta) evolve while another "metastasizes". The reason your LLM was inclined to say this is because of these three statements I made:
>"it's bad", "it didn't produce", or "it isn't real"
It predicted that I was about to eliminate the ethical, pragmatic, and epistemic arguments that your posts very tritely and shallowly referenced. You should beg your LLM to elaborate on what makes theology metastasize where Buddhism or some philosophies simply "evolve".
The rest of your post can be very clearly understood here:
>And the fact that you need me to churn out a thousand-word essay to validate something so basic only proves how addicted you are to performance over clarity.
Where you forget that your very particular worldview is also founded on these thousand-word performative essays, filtered down to you from reddit comments and youtube videos. Rational understanding is generally not founded on unsubstantiated, inane aphorisms delivered thoughtlessly from a corporate webpage.