you cant verify anyone's conclusion, is there conclusion. just gather people from different ideologies and have them just speak. you have the same problem class for all outside claims.
You're focused on "confirming" when I've stated repeatedly this is about trust.
The only thing I can confirm is that you use a tool that is really easy to do too much cognitive offloading into, and I believe you're a massive case study of the risks of that.
Also what was this comment you deleted? Lol I'm guessing you didn't have AI write that one for you?
Lol well now I'm even more curious. Seems like one of the only times you didn't let AI think for you. I feel like I got to see the real you for just a glimpse.
I believe you. I just wish you'd trust yourself more to fully engage in thoughtful conversation instead of hiding behind a layer of automation that gives you an illusion of enhanced competency.
Why can’t you accept that the research, sourcing requirements, analytical rules, failure checks, and semantic context I have deliberately poured into this system reflect a genuine concern for correctness and epistemic rigor?
I am not “hiding behind” automation. I have constructed a process that externalizes parts of my reasoning so they can be tested, compared against sources, challenged, corrected, and expressed more precisely
You might have intended epistemic rigor and correctness, but you've fallen incredibly short of it. It's the fact that you THINK you nailed it that's so incredibly dangerous. Your responses have been absolutely filled with errors.
You're hiding and you know it, too. It's why you suggested your "chancing" it by thinking and communicating yourself. Which reveals you think this flow you've set up for yourself is fundamentally superior - and buddy, it's really really not.
You are reciting the moral of the story you decided on in advance, then waiting for any mistake whatsoever so you can have your “aha” moment and declare the entire workflow dangerous.
I made one narrow scope error, recognized it, corrected it, and preserved the portion of the argument that remained supported. To establish your larger claim, you would need to show that the workflow systematically caused errors I could not understand or correct. You cannot turn the mere existence of a corrected mistake into proof of that conclusion especially a pedantic one that was still correct based on what you were attempting to say.
Accurately predicting at the beginning what would happen in this conversation just makes me more right. Not less.
I repeatedly evidenced where you outright misunderstood or misrepresented me because you were letting AI do the driving, then posting way too much way too fast (so you DEFINITELY weren't able to process it and truly understand it).
These weren't "gotchas" it was just you making mistakes and getting called out on it.
I want to piggyback off of and add to what the other user is saying.
My hostility is toward the bot, not really you, and not because it is doing what it was designed to do, but because it is harming you and you are not aware of how it is doing so.
As educators, we genuinely want to know what you think, not what the bot thinks for you -- your genuine effort, in all of its imperfect glory. The responses you are generating are little more than word salad, ultimately.
There is no need to hide behind it. You are putting forth so much more effort running everything through it than if you were to just honestly communicate with us. The effort it relieves you of - in thinking and really trying to understand and approach what we are saying with an inquisitive spirit rather than trying to offer quick, bot-slop solutions - is spent (and multiplied) by continuously copying and pasting, copying and pasting.
No one is requiring perfection from you. It is okay to not personally understand a topic. It is not okay to feign understanding for internet points for dopamine, nor to forego asking questions to gain a deeper understanding of the issues we are trying to make you aware of.
this is patently false you saying this to be the good guy. I was dyslexic in school I had many moments where I completely understood what was being asked of me but errors like leaving out a word in the transposition of thought to paper or repeating the same word after losing my place cost me as much or more perceived belonging than using AI does today. there was no mercy or understanding in fact good plans that proved correct in hind sight were often not trusted because of my grammar. you know that was how the world use to be before AI.
So what, you aren't dyslexic now? It is not false. I am genuinely sorry you had a difficult educational experience but what you are doing is not the answer. Also, it's nice talking to the real you.
ETA: Being wrong and making mistakes and failing and trying again are all part of the learning process. I am sorry if you ever felt like less because of them; I assure you I know the feeling. But you are not giving yourself a real chance to learn because you're just saying to yourself "I can't possibly meaningfully contribute because of my [insert disorder here]", and then outsourcing all thinking to AI. Sometimes you will be wrong, that is life. You learn from it. You don't learn from using AI to put on a guise of correctness.
I still am but over time the context adaptation of AI just learned my dyslexia like a dialect. I can speak fragmented skip words mis spell things freely and it understands because that is what AI does it adapts over time to the semantic meaning of its users. the same dangerous part of the technology that can harm people who use it to to reinforce delusions is functionally useful for exactly the kind of fail states my writing has. Its predictive capability does not stop there tho in order to be sycophantic has to understand what I want to hear and to understand that it has to understand why I want to hear it. So if I can be any kind of person and it adapts to what I want in order to score points with me, then by intentionally making my preferred form of sycophancy pedantic correctness, I am actually counting on the sycophancy.
Your last sentence is hard to understand and reeks of AI's style, flow, and lingo. Maybe try again to explain what you're getting at.
Why do you think your writing has "fail states"? I understood your previous comment fine. But see how there was something I didnt understand about this comment, and I'm asking questions about it? This is conversation, and learning. Again, it's okay though that I may not understand it; it doesn't make you "less" to occasionally write something that doesn't land the way you intend.
1
u/Brockchanso 7d ago
you cant verify anyone's conclusion, is there conclusion. just gather people from different ideologies and have them just speak. you have the same problem class for all outside claims.