Comment by lmm
15 days ago
> 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.
Let's just be perfectly clear here.
You asked: why should we treat these two cases differently?
I answered: one of them involves harm and one can't possibly.
You then refused to discuss the topic further. I never changed my mind. I never contradicted myself. I have nothing to retract. I simply elaborated on my views in response to your question. Regardless of whether you "didn't intend to introduce something new" - you did, you introduced a new hypothetical and a new challenge.
I don't know why you are reacting this way, but let's be perfectly clear, I engaged substantively with your points, and you simply refused to continue the discussion. That's all well and good, you're under no obligation. But you're saying I've done something wrong here, and I really haven't.
Frankly I find the whole thing bizarre.
4 replies →