Lolz, classic case of Dunning Kruger Effect. Well, I can very easily reply with references from the article but I think it’s futile to reply to someone who didn’t even read the full thing before making a counter as such. If you bother to read further then you’ll find arguments for other part of the question, about philosophy coming first. And then probably you’ll figure out how “it really resisted resolution”.
Also, I feel sorry for your vocabulary that these words feels large enough to be off-putting. Those words were best suited for describing the idea using the least amount of words.
Lastly, would be nice if you read a thing or two about how AI detectors work and how reliable are they. Would be useful to you in general. Also, anyways, I recommend you to read the first line of the article, that this video is based on transcript of the attached video.
I don’t feel your comment substantively responds to any point I made.
1. I said that the motivating question of your post appears to have a straightforward answer. Your response was that it’s futile to reply to this.
2. I said the verbose style was off-putting. Your response was that you think this style is best suited to express your idea in the least amount of words. I find this extremely implausible given sentences like this:
Before the emergence of human consciousness and the cognitive capacity for philosophical abstraction, reality existed as a system of causalities, physical laws, chemical reactions, biological processes, operating independently of interpretation or conceptualization.
Is this really the simplest way to express this idea?
3. I said that two AI detectors labeled your post as AI generated. Your response was that this post was based on a transcript of your video. I watched random sections of your video. The speakers in the video do not speak with the style presented in this post.
My reply didn’t substantively responds to any point you made in your comment, because I don’t feel your comment is substantively countering or commenting on the arguments of the articles. As I said, it’s based on a narrow build up section.
The answer is not straightforward. it’s like people seeing sun moving in sky and saying it’s straightforward that earth is in center. Read arguments against the “straightforward” answer before concluding.
Well, I can’t help it if you find it implausible. All the words in that paragraph and article are necessary to make the point and express the idea precisely.
I didn’t say “it is the transcript of the video”. I said “it is based on the the transcript of the video”. There’s redesign, restructure, coherence, narration, etc added to it. Think of it like movie adaptation of a novel.
Lolz, classic case of Dunning Kruger Effect.
Well, I can very easily reply with references from the article but I think it’s futile to reply to someone who didn’t even read the full thing before making a counter as such. If you bother to read further then you’ll find arguments for other part of the question, about philosophy coming first. And then probably you’ll figure out how “it really resisted resolution”.
Also, I feel sorry for your vocabulary that these words feels large enough to be off-putting. Those words were best suited for describing the idea using the least amount of words.
Lastly, would be nice if you read a thing or two about how AI detectors work and how reliable are they. Would be useful to you in general. Also, anyways, I recommend you to read the first line of the article, that this video is based on transcript of the attached video.
I don’t feel your comment substantively responds to any point I made.
1. I said that the motivating question of your post appears to have a straightforward answer. Your response was that it’s futile to reply to this.
2. I said the verbose style was off-putting. Your response was that you think this style is best suited to express your idea in the least amount of words. I find this extremely implausible given sentences like this:
Is this really the simplest way to express this idea?
3. I said that two AI detectors labeled your post as AI generated. Your response was that this post was based on a transcript of your video. I watched random sections of your video. The speakers in the video do not speak with the style presented in this post.
My reply didn’t substantively responds to any point you made in your comment, because I don’t feel your comment is substantively countering or commenting on the arguments of the articles. As I said, it’s based on a narrow build up section.
The answer is not straightforward. it’s like people seeing sun moving in sky and saying it’s straightforward that earth is in center. Read arguments against the “straightforward” answer before concluding.
Well, I can’t help it if you find it implausible. All the words in that paragraph and article are necessary to make the point and express the idea precisely.
I didn’t say “it is the transcript of the video”. I said “it is based on the the transcript of the video”. There’s redesign, restructure, coherence, narration, etc added to it. Think of it like movie adaptation of a novel.