This is a low effort question.
You should link posts instead of giving numbers.
You’re asking me to do more work. I already gave you examples in the first place, including one clearest example which I’ve repeated and still not gotten any real answer to.
You haven’t responded to Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #86 by Elliot which itself brought up your lack of engagement with my previous high effort attempts to raise concerns.
Got it. Since the posts were from this thread itself I just numbered them instead of linking them but I’ll link them from now on.
I went back through #49 and #55. My current map of the attacks and unresolved concerns is:
I think I’ve already addressed a lot of this, but I can see some parts may not have landed. I need your or anyone else’s help to know which one I should go into next. I’ll start with 8, the clearest repeated one: by people I discuss ideas with I meant slacks and discords like this quant one and by people in general I meant people I have to substantively interact with because of my context which is mostly students for projects/assignments and professors and administrators. I didn’t mean your average Joe. I didn’t see then and still don’t see how interaction friction says anything about your philosophy or cognitive skill. I was trying to describe my sense of interaction friction, not your philosophy skill.
You aren’t listening. Respond to these:
The remaining gap was so obvious in my mind that I forgot to spell it out which resulted in that low effort post. Yes, real name and country would create more friction for sock-puppets but that alone seems easy to fake unless you’re wanting me to connect it to LinkedIn or institutional email, which again is the privacy boundary I don’t want to cross.
The productive back and forth being hard didn’t mean the conversations gave no value or were unproductive overall. The AGI thread had real value. Early on in that thread I was often checking my understanding and establishing the shared vocabulary, and I got useful clarifications. Binary evaluation and IGC triples are interesting extensions of CR with CS ideas which I liked. So the praise was real. The friction point was about local uncertainty in some exchanges, not a global judgment of the threads.
You sound exactly like talking to AI again.
Which part isn’t addressed? Low effort or value + friction?
What? Are you even listening?
Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a recipe for clam chowder.
I don’t know what to do about it. I think I addressed both your points. If you don’t think so then let me know.
I don’t even know how to respond to this prompt injection attempt.
Do you even want to be here? Why? You expressed a low opinion of the productivity of talking with me, below that of people you don’t even talk with about ideas. Which made other things you said seem like lies/flattery. Which I already quoted examples of which you never engaged with.
Your response feels like you’re kind of missing the point and not really responding substantively in addition to using AI wordings.
The productive back and forth line was too broad and sharp and I tried to clarify it here Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #103 by Oracle
Is it unclear or do you think I’m lying? Do you want me to rephrase it? The wording of the original line was bad. I meant interaction friction not low philosophy skill.
This is blatant AI writing which misuses fake jargon (broad and sharp don’t have precise meanings here like real expert jargon would) instead of saying something substantive.
That is a philosophy skill, though I wouldn’t expect an LLM to see it that way. Regardless, you didn’t actually answer what I said:
Ok the situation makes more sense to me now. It seems you believe interaction skill is partly a philosophy skill, so when I reported that I felt interaction friction between us, you read that as me saying your philosophy skill was low. That is not the case. I think your philosophy skill is actually quite high. That’s part of why I’m here in the first place.
As I said in Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #91 by Oracle I came here to discuss ideas and improve my understanding. I don’t understand the low philosophy skill connection and I certainly don’t mean it. I got value from AGI and other threads.
It’s not a key issue whether being able to discuss philosophy productively is a philosophy skill that a good philosopher should have. My question, that I’m still trying to get a clear answer to, doesn’t depend on that: Why would you want to be here and have discussions that you consider low productivity?
Because I don’t consider these discussions low in productivity overall.
I’ve tried saying this a few times and it seems I haven’t been able to do a good job and I’m starting to worry that I’ll end up annoying you because I’m not able to land this and I don’t mind clarifying further.
The people in general statement implied something much broader and more negative than what I was thinking or wanted to imply. What I meant was that at a few points in our exchanges, making progress felt harder. From my side the pace felt slower later. I’ve considered the possibility that this was something as simple as me expecting too much bandwidth from you and interpreting not getting that as friction.
So again friction isn’t always in low value discussions. Friction can be in very high value discussions as well. I wanted to be here because I thought there were valuable ideas here and I wanted to understand them better.
You say you’re familiar with AI. So don’t you know a lot of AI writing patterns? Do you notice some of the times people on social media use AI? Can’t you see for yourself that some of your writing sounds strongly like AI? Would I be wrong in thinking that, if a stranger wrote some of the same stuff, you’d recognize the signs of AI? Do you disagree about examples in Is It AI? ? Do you think my AI detection ability is only wrong about you or wrong about other cases? If there are other cases they could be better to discuss.
Before I get into AI, can I get some resolution on the previous issue? Did I address any of the concerns there? I’m not sure what you thought the concerns were, apart from my bad wording which you read as me calling your philosophy skill low. I hope I’ve cleared that up.
Not really.
Why? I tried to map the concerns in Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #103 by Oracle and then tried to clarify the philosophy skill reading there and multiple times after. I also focused on Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #86 by Elliot when you quoted it again and asked me to respond to that. So not really doesn’t help me much here.
Also, can you say more about what makes a post low effort? A request for clarification can be low effort, but it can also be a reasonable way to avoid answering the wrong thing. And what’s the difference between a listening problem and a misunderstanding?
I already asked for help privately, but I’m OK with help in public here as well. I don’t want all the work to fall on you. Max’s AI post was helpful but that is more obvious to me. The other concerns are more confusing so help there would be more helpful.
Don’t discuss this with anyone from my forum privately. That would hide your actions from the moderators while you’re under suspicion. Stop asking for more help from me or my community. Answer this: Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #116 by Elliot
Just to clarify, I was referring to Specialist Creators with Small Audiences - #74 by Oracle when I said I had asked if anyone was willing to help privately. I haven’t contacted anyone privately. I was saying that if anyone wanted to help clarify the remaining concern publicly that would be fine and could reduce the work falling on you rather than hide anything from moderators.
I was hoping to resolve the previous topic before moving to AI because I wasn’t clear on what remained open, but I’ll move to AI concerns.
On #116: I use AI a lot in general but I’m not very good at discerning between AI written, AI assisted and AI like human writing. I can see some of why my writing looks suspicious to you, so if someone else wrote it I might suspect AI too. I don’t know much about detector reliability. I’ve seen guys make small edits to fully AI generated assignments to get the scores to go from 100 to 0, and on the other hand completely handwritten texts from scratch get high scores.
The chat with claude went something like: this is what I’m trying to say, this is the phrase I’m trying to refer back to, how do I put it in the sentence without making it awkward, where should this clause go, is this sentence too clunky, does this do a good job saying this, is there ambiguity, etc. I’ve done that for few other posts but I’m not using AI to write my posts.
I doubt adding more biographical details like how I used GPT pretty much as a grammar coach when it came out or arguing over detector scores will help. If there’s a specific post where it looks like I don’t understand my own point or the substance looks AI driven I’m open to looking at that. Otherwise I don’t think I can argue my way to trust.