[basil-rash]

You’re so caught up in insulting me, you never stopped to think of I’d consider inventing a novel medical technique an “application” of knowledge. I would.

If all he did was read books about things other people did, he certainly would not have invented that.

Your following attempt at armchair psychology is humorous, but not much beyond that I’m afraid. Don’t quit your dayjob.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

My dayjob is as psychologist. No joke.

And my specialty is spotting morons on social media.

[basil-rash]

Well I certainly hope your patients can find the help they need. But let’s drop the hominems and get to the point:

Do you have a real counter example? Someone that through reading the material of others alone, with no practical/“hands on” experience, was able to develop what you consider “deep” knowledge?

Edit: A day ago you were arguing talent can’t come without training. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39656444

In fact much of your comment history is dedicated to claiming knowledge requires product. How bizzare.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

> A day ago you were arguing talent can’t come without training

> In fact much of your comment history is dedicated to claiming knowledge requires product.

Your comment is a great example of someone putting their (mis-)interpretation into something.

No, I didn't say anything about products. I leave that for tinkerers and sales people.

> Do you have a real counter example?

Already gave you one, no idea why you're asking again.

[basil-rash]

Reread why I said your example was bogus, I don’t have time to repeat myself.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

I didn't read it the first time and I'm not going to read it a second time. I don't have time for you.

[basil-rash]

Ha, I had thought you were an LLM prompted to be a contrarian with a chip on their shoulder. This all but confirms it^. I bet you don’t even have the prior messages in your context window.

^Or at least something with approximately that level of intellectual capacity/honesty.