[Dylan16807]

They compared it to a sentence that doesn't make sense, and said "makes no more sense".

If they weren't saying "flagship" makes no sense as a non-ship noun, then they used the wrong words.

Oh unless by OP you meant someone other than jvanderbot, but jvanderbot is the person that prompted the claude reply. It wasn't a reply to duxup, who didn't even mention the headline.

[refulgentis]

Ok, so you realize now you lied, and the poster never claimed it didn't make sense. That was thin gruel already, they made very clear their complaint was about usage, i.e. the part of adjectives is half their comment, that the LLM poster themselves noted.

Given that, do you still believe the huge, unedited, LLM explanation of "flagship" was responding to someone?

If so, who?

If not, I'd like to avoid normalizing spamming long, child-like, auto-generated, explanations of things to prop up straw-men in service of condescending.

A message board where that was mundane, everyday, behavior wouldn't be fun to be on.

I might enjoy it if I think someone deserved it, but I'd still balance that with the long view, because that sort of behavior is extremely corrosive.

[Dylan16807]

> Ok, so you realize now you lied, and the poster never claimed it didn't make sense.

I'm not lying. I stand by the claim that jvanderbot was saying it didn't make sense.

> Given that, do you still believe the huge, unedited, LLM explanation of "flagship" was responding to someone?

> If so, who?

Is this a real question? Do you not see how it's a reply to jvanderbot...?

> Is it helpful to normalize spamming long child-like auto-generated explanations of things to prop up strawmen? Would that be a fun board to be on?

The ship comment is just as child-like, and it came first. So while I don't think AI comments are good in general, I think in context it wasn't egregious. If we're trying to filter toward good discussion, then jvanderbot's comment should not be treated as much better than the claude comment.

[refulgentis]

1. You know what they said. ("They said "makes no more sense".)

2. They demonstrated they understood, via note on part of speech and reworded example.

3. You're happy to lie about it. ("I stand by the claim that jvanderbot was saying it didn't make sense")

4. LLM spam is good because it proves what they didn't say is wrong.

I think we all agree on #1, I and the spammer agree on #2, and I alone believe #3, and you alone believe #4.

With that, best to leave it at our interests differ: I'd prefer a forum that wasn't overrun by people making up things other people said* and posting LLM responses to the made up thing.**.

* aka, a strawman.

** aka, spam

[Dylan16807]

You're missing that jvanderbot's post was itself a strawman, about the title.

And I still say the way they insisted on flagship being the wrong word while using the phrase "no more sense" was a form of not understanding. Doing it on purpose doesn't mean not doing it.

If that's not what you meant by "understanding" then I'm sorry for not reading your mind. It doesn't make me a liar. And you don't seem to have made any attempt to understand what I meant.

And you're doing your own strawman with 4. You know that, right?