There is nothing physics/metaphysics about this. If you don’t understand the terms, don’t pretend you do and write slop as a comment, it is really not that different from using LLM to generate slop.
back
3 comments
The parent comment is not suggesting that Yon is about physics/metaphysics.
Understanding is important for readers. Demonstrating understanding is important for writers of both technical documentation and internet comments, and of critical importance in the era of AI.
Understanding goes both ways. OP was just sharing something they thought was interesting. The Ted Chiang piece was horribly written logically and yet it was "written well" in prose. We should look past the writing and learn (if any) the interesting parts.
"If you don’t understand the terms, don’t pretend you do"
The comment you're replying to explicitly says "This language looks interesting, but I don’t understand the concepts." so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Their note about physics/metaphysics was about "someone [they] knew", not TFA.
Then why even insinuate that these are similar? It's just using it to heavily suggest it is crankery.
I indeed was insinuating that OP may be in the early stages of AI psychosis - or, if you don’t believe that’s a thing, at least in a mildly delusional or hyperactive state.
If I’m wrong, I don’t think any of the advice I gave was harmful. Really it’s good advice for anyone sunk deep into a problem to periodically take space, relax and recharge - and potentially allow their brain to work on it in the background while they do.
My questions came from a genuine place of wanting to understand the system though.
Thanks for being honest, at least.
What if it's pure nonsense, therefore impossible for anyone to understand. Does that mean all criticism is "slop" and nobody's allowed to comment on it?
This is multiple logical fallacies in one comment and definitely a comment I would mark in the "pure nonsense" bin. Not all criticism is slop, but anything ad hominem (personal attacks), argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity), or argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) is not useful.