|
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. |
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.