Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article, and the paper it references, is not an argument or "proof" of anything. This is not a theorem. The point is, given access to the same relative information as anything, there is (supposedly) a greater trust, there is less I-dont-knows with something in the form of a chatbot vs something else. ...Are you saying there is a difference between an "argument" and a "point"? And you accuse me of missing what p…
I mean yeah.. An argument is typically something pretty different from a "point"... Idk why that seems so crazy? If I do an experiment, I would never say I am arguing something. I wouldn't even say I was making the point. I was, despite its seeming futility now, trying to make a point about the article to you . It seems willfully misread to take my last post in any other way. As for the experiment itself, this takes…
Because it feels like you aren't even trying to understand me if such a tiny wording difference makes you skip over what I'm actually saying.
> I wouldn't even say I was making the point.
I know! You quoted them, and I took issue with a thing in the quote!
> I was, despite its seeming futility now, trying to make a point about the article to you. It seems willfully misread to take my last post in any other way.
I can see you saying things about the article, but I'm not disagreeing with you (except to the extent that you're defending the paper), I'm disagreeing with the authors.
> I don't know why you are talking like I did this experiment?
I don't know what I said to gave you that impression. I keep pointing at the line you quoted when I explain my complaint.
My first post in this thread didn't include a single word of yours. It was only the quote.
> There is literally no delegation in the way (I think) you are meaning, there is the contrived presentation of different tools for different control groups.
Forget what you think I mean. Forget what words I used.
They said "precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool". They were trying to make a particular explanation impossible here. That's what I'm referring to.
They wanted to avoid that explanation, and I'm saying they failed to avoid it, possibly even backfired and did the opposite of that.
There's no point in nitpicking the words I use to try to refer to that sentence. Pretend I'm just drawing a big arrow pointing at that sentence.
> I am not over here trying to argue for anything other than common sense and the ability to understand what the researchers were doing using even a oz of intellectual charity.
I'm also arguing for common sense and understanding what they were doing. And I'm saying that in this specific aspect of what they were doing, it didn't work.
I'm not judging the entire experiment here, just that one aspect.
> Is that, too, impossible now? Where is the freaking fire?
Is me insisting I see one flaw acting like there's a "fire"? I don't think so.