Comment by maxbond
16 days ago
That's pretty uncharitable. You pivoted the conversation by introducing a new hypothetical for me to respond to. Of course my response is different. There's no conflict between the two comments.
If we're going to be play that game, notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable? I actually engaged substantively with your hypothetical; are you able to do the same?
> You pivoted the conversation by introducing a new hypothetical for me to respond to.
I wasn't trying to introduce anything new, I was trying to point out a gap in the logic of your original statement.
> notice how you didn't actually respond to my comment or explain why you thought LLMs were moral entitles or why ML and teaching were comparable?
Yes, of course, I wrote that to explain why I'm not engaging on this new, different claim.
The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops. Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me.
> The nerve of me, to expand on my views as a discussion develops.
Nothing wrong with expanding your views. But you've neither defended nor retracted your original argument. I'm trying to stick to that.
> Of course you have lots of great points to make, but you can't share them with the likes of me.
I don't have anything to say about your new argument (which may be great and compelling), I haven't thought through it at all, I'm trying to avoid getting sidetracked.
5 replies →