A couple of your refutations are sound, a couple more iffy (may hold up), and the rest, fail and even add more fallacies. XD … that’s a lot of flexing Brandolini’s law. Not sure it’s worth it. In the attempts to refute, added something like 38 new fallacies, for a total of about 57 fallacies now, kinda overshadows the 2-5 refuted. I’m out. Enough red flags.
I had to look up what that was because I’ve never heard of that law. I like that, and will likely use that in the future. I have to agree though, but from the other direction. Yeah, my response post to the LLM fallacy list was a lot of that, I knew it would be going into it though as any LLM response interpreting data on a specific level like that, generally needs that. That’s ultimately why I don’t like using LLMs in the first place. Because you have to go back and fix it anyway. (Note the LLM say that’s a fallacy since it doesn’t /always/ happen, and it will also post a fallacy saying that I’m saying that it will do so but I digress)
I responded to the first fallacy post mostly to show how inaccurate LLMs can be when you use it to interpret dialogue. They are great for summarizing concepts and finding data sets, But actually classifying or generating information is one of their weak points. A good chunk of the claimed fallacies could have been summarized by it either misinterpreting the post, ignoring other parts of the post and or giving a redirection in order to fit it’s mantra. And some of them just straight out added additional fallacies to the mix as well.
And yea, I agree. I’m done with this conversation as well. We’re no longer talking about fish anymore, the topic adjusted to isn’t crediting or discrediting the initial posts since it’s all built off LLM false attribution & strays away from the topic of the community lol
A couple of your refutations are sound, a couple more iffy (may hold up), and the rest, fail and even add more fallacies. XD … that’s a lot of flexing Brandolini’s law. Not sure it’s worth it. In the attempts to refute, added something like 38 new fallacies, for a total of about 57 fallacies now, kinda overshadows the 2-5 refuted. I’m out. Enough red flags.
I had to look up what that was because I’ve never heard of that law. I like that, and will likely use that in the future. I have to agree though, but from the other direction. Yeah, my response post to the LLM fallacy list was a lot of that, I knew it would be going into it though as any LLM response interpreting data on a specific level like that, generally needs that. That’s ultimately why I don’t like using LLMs in the first place. Because you have to go back and fix it anyway. (Note the LLM say that’s a fallacy since it doesn’t /always/ happen, and it will also post a fallacy saying that I’m saying that it will do so but I digress)
I responded to the first fallacy post mostly to show how inaccurate LLMs can be when you use it to interpret dialogue. They are great for summarizing concepts and finding data sets, But actually classifying or generating information is one of their weak points. A good chunk of the claimed fallacies could have been summarized by it either misinterpreting the post, ignoring other parts of the post and or giving a redirection in order to fit it’s mantra. And some of them just straight out added additional fallacies to the mix as well.
And yea, I agree. I’m done with this conversation as well. We’re no longer talking about fish anymore, the topic adjusted to isn’t crediting or discrediting the initial posts since it’s all built off LLM false attribution & strays away from the topic of the community lol