You’re going heavy on the motivated reasoning here. The reason people don’t want to respond to you is not that you’re pure genius, it’s that it isn’t worth the effort.
You’re also doing a motte and bailey on exactly what argument you’re trying to make. If all you’re saying is “sending X through an LLM produces Y”, then yes, I could just try an LLM. But that’s not all that you’re saying. You’re trying to draw conclusions from the result of the LLM. Refuting those conclusions is a lot of effort for little benefit.
“All I’m asking you to do is to run this through an LLM”.
But
“Actually, that’s not all I’m asking you to do. You also need to refute this whole post.”
And your stated reason for not responding to any of it is that it’s inconvenient.
It’s inconvenient to reply to lots of things, even false things. I probably wouldn’t reply to a homeopath or a Holocaust denier, for instance, especially not to refute the things he says.
You’re going heavy on the motivated reasoning here. The reason people don’t want to respond to you is not that you’re pure genius, it’s that it isn’t worth the effort.
You’re also doing a motte and bailey on exactly what argument you’re trying to make. If all you’re saying is “sending X through an LLM produces Y”, then yes, I could just try an LLM. But that’s not all that you’re saying. You’re trying to draw conclusions from the result of the LLM. Refuting those conclusions is a lot of effort for little benefit.
deleted
The motte and bailey is:
“All I’m asking you to do is to run this through an LLM”.
But
“Actually, that’s not all I’m asking you to do. You also need to refute this whole post.”
It’s inconvenient to reply to lots of things, even false things. I probably wouldn’t reply to a homeopath or a Holocaust denier, for instance, especially not to refute the things he says.
deleted
Running it through the LLM is easy.
Refuting the argument that you’re using the LLM’s output for takes longer, though.