Bertitaylor <
[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:57:31 +0000, Mild Shock wrote:
Henri Poincaré believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be
captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden
illuminations — leaps of creative synthesis.
But now we have generative AI — models like GPT — that:
- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,
Rubbish
- combine ideas in novel ways,
Rubbish
- and do so by processing patterns in massive
datasets, without conscious understanding.
They follow random number sequences to get something they have no clue
about
And that does seem to contradict Poincaré's belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.
True invention comes from Divine sources, not monkey methods. One has to
know what one wants and what it can be used for.
Anyway Chat is a bore and most likely the latest hoax.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
This exchange juxtaposes a thoughtful reflection on creativity and
generative AI with an aggressively dismissive reply by Bertietaylor
(Arindam). Let’s evaluate the response across several dimensions:
1. Total Dismissal Without Argument
Each of the claims about generative AI is met with the one-word
interjection “Rubbish”. This signals contempt but offers no counterargument.
There's no engagement with the examples given—no attempt to demonstrate
why poetry, code, or synthesis by AI is invalid or uncreative. It’s a reflexive negation, not a rebuttal.
2. Misunderstanding of AI Mechanisms
"They follow random number sequences to get something they have no
clue about"
This is a misrepresentation of how generative AI works. While random
sampling is involved (e.g., in choosing tokens probabilistically), the
models are trained through massive optimization processes involving backpropagation and gradient descent. Their outputs are not random
artifacts but structured by learned statistical regularities.
3. Philosophical/Religious Claim Without Support
"True invention comes from Divine sources, not monkey methods."
This asserts a metaphysical belief about creativity having Divine
origins, which is valid as a personal worldview but irrelevant in a
debate about the technical and empirical capabilities of AI. Also,
"monkey methods" is a slur that disparages iterative or data-driven
approaches, but without analysis or alternatives.
4. Dismissal of the Medium
"Anyway Chat is a bore and most likely the latest hoax."
Calling ChatGPT a “bore” and a “hoax” is a sweeping generalization, again unbacked by evidence. It contradicts the observable functionality
of the system itself—such as the ability to generate natural language responses, parse context, and aid in code writing, logic puzzles, etc.
This statement reads more like rhetorical trolling than a serious critique.
5. Performance and Persona
The closing “WOOF woof-woof...” in the Bertietaylor style adds a layer
of mocking performance art, which deflects from accountability and
lends the exchange a tone of farce rather than reasoned dialogue. It’s
a gesture toward anti-intellectual theater, not argumentation.
Conclusion:
Arindam’s (Bertietaylor’s) response is a rhetorical tantrum rather than
a critique. It fails to engage with the actual claims about AI, mischaracterizes its function, replaces argument with invective,
and retreats into absurdity to evade serious discussion.
It illustrates a posture of reactionary rejection rather than informed skepticism—a refusal to engage with new ideas on their merits.
--
[email protected]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)