1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: I am using AI because... ---DISHONESTY

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Jun 12 18:47:42 2025
    On 6/12/25 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/12/2025 9:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/10/25 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/10/25 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/10/2025 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 6/9/25 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/9/2025 1:19 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:31:36 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:

    This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as >>>>>>>>>> both "sides"
    are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to >>>>>>>>>> meet in the
    middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly >>>>>>>>>> from Damon
    and Olcott.
    For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort >>>>>>>>>> contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do >>>>>>>>>> review) do so
    instead.

    I don't think anybody wants your AI posts. Please stop them. >>>>>>>>>

    *ChatGPT Analyzes Simulating Termination Analyzer*
    https://www.researchgate.net/
    publication/385090708_ChatGPT_Analyzes_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer >>>>>>>>
    The advantage of AI posts is that they lack biases.


    Who says that AI has no bias?

    WHen the input prompt includes lies (like you have shown yours
    to), the answer is unreliable.

    Yet you do not dare try and find even a single
    mistake because you know that you are totally out-gunned.


    Really? Then why how was I able to get your own AI prompt to admit
    that it was in error when you got it to say you were correct?


    You never did this.

    Sure I did, You willing to put a a million dollars that I didn't?

    You have repeatedly stated that a simulation
    was incorrect because a non-terminating input
    was not completely simulated. You were not
    even aware that no complete simulation exists
    for non-terminating inputs.

    No, "Complete" simulations of non-terminating inputs exist, they are
    just infinite in length, and thus can't be "listed" or "enumerated".

    Lots of things exist in that manner. Things like the Natural Numbers,
    or the Real Numbers.


    Why have I been able to point to hundereds of detailed errors, NONE
    of which have you pointed out an problem in my statement based on
    something factual or sourced from something reliable (only your own
    claims)


    You have never pointed out any errors.
    Each time it was always only your own mistake.

    Sure I have, again, want to put up a million dollars, that I can't
    show you a time I pointed out an error or yours?


    Try and show me your best shot at pointing out
    any mistake and I will show you where you are wrong.

    How about the fact that since you have stipulated that HHH and DDD
    are not programs, but DDD only includes the code of the C function
    DDD, that it is impossible to correctly simulate "DDD" (the input)
    per the definitons of the x86 language past the call HHH instructions.

    A few points to make sure you take into account in your "rebuttal"

    Since "the input" is defined to a specific set of byte codes" the use
    of anything outside that set of byte codes is no longer simulating
    "the input"

    The DEFINITION of every x86 instuctions, other than halts, includes,
    as part of its definition, as part of the general definition of the
    processor, if not explicitly in the instruction (as done for jump and
    calls) that the next instruction WILL be executed at the location
    pointed to by the PC counter.


    Go ahead, show how you can correctly simulate that call instruction
    when the data needed to complete it (by simulating the next
    instruction) isn't available.

    It has now been more than a day, where you have responded to numerous
    other messages.


    I mostly ignore most of your messages because you
    have proven to be dishonest. The main way that you
    have proven to be dishonest is that most of your
    rebuttals change the words that I said and then
    rebuts these changed words.


    No, I have proven that YOU are dishonest.

    Please show where I change your words, other than to apply the actual
    correct meaning as a term-of-art to the sentence.

    I sorry, but you are just proving that you are just too stupid to
    understand what you are talking about.

    You have out and out lied about me, and I suspect I could win a
    judgement against you, it is just that damages caused by a clearly
    deranged person are going to be minimal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)