avatar
quackometer.bsky.social @quackometer.bsky.social

If a LLM described water as h2o would you doubt its sources? You are free to argue that this argument is right or wrong since I fully adopt it as my own.

aug 30, 2025, 2:51 pm • 0 0

Replies

avatar
Dominic @dominic11b4.bsky.social

Thing is, the LLM part is superfluous at best and it's a Gish gallop at worst. It's not that it's right or wrong, it's that LLM is extremely unreliable to the point that it's reckless, even fraudulent, to rely on it.

aug 30, 2025, 3:19 pm • 1 0 • view
avatar
Dominic @dominic11b4.bsky.social

If it described the molecular formula of water as H2O, it's still an unreliable source that happens to stumble on something correct and it's something that LLM adds nothing to. It's just noise.

aug 30, 2025, 3:19 pm • 1 0 • view
avatar
Dominic @dominic11b4.bsky.social

It's as if you manage to predict the weather with dices and a table. It doesn't prove that your dices have any predictive powers, it proves that a random process can occasionally spit outputs that align with the weather

aug 30, 2025, 3:19 pm • 2 0 • view
avatar
quackometer.bsky.social @quackometer.bsky.social

The point that I used a LLM to create an answer is immaterial to whether or not the answer is factually correct or not.

aug 30, 2025, 4:37 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dominic @dominic11b4.bsky.social

Correction, the point is that you used LLM as an attempt to create illusory support for your unsupported but desired "answer".

aug 31, 2025, 4:24 am • 0 0 • view
avatar
quackometer.bsky.social @quackometer.bsky.social

No, The LLM crafted an explanation. You are too dishonest to evaluate if it is correct or not. SO you want to argue about the method of production rather than its content. Far easier for you to do that.

aug 31, 2025, 11:41 am • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dominic @dominic11b4.bsky.social

Besides the answer being straight up incorrect, if you thought that the method of production was irrelevant, you wouldn't have bothered to fraudulently fabricate "proofs "

aug 31, 2025, 12:06 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Michael Engard @engard.me

Which is to say, we should consider the source of this information to be… you?

aug 30, 2025, 3:03 pm • 2 0 • view
avatar
quackometer.bsky.social @quackometer.bsky.social

Happy to adopt this as my position. Is it correct or not? My position is that the term is used for two different concepts. One an evolved reproductive Strategy for a species; the other an old fashioned term for rare medical conditions.

aug 30, 2025, 4:43 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
quackometer.bsky.social @quackometer.bsky.social

And as such, no human can or ever has reproduced in both male and female roles. Whereas some snails routinely do this.

aug 30, 2025, 4:44 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dominic @dominic11b4.bsky.social

And, if he needs to use a llm, he is fundamentally a worse source than a mediocre high schooler. Or, he knows enough basic chemistry to make llm irrelevant.

aug 30, 2025, 3:22 pm • 1 0 • view
avatar
quackometer.bsky.social @quackometer.bsky.social

Am I wrong about the two meanings of hermaphrodite?

aug 30, 2025, 4:50 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Rob the Blue Mage @thebluemage.bsky.social

Who said there only two definitions of that term?

aug 30, 2025, 5:05 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Martin Bettik, Who Enjoys Icing ICE @martinbettik.bsky.social

Yes.

aug 30, 2025, 7:26 pm • 2 0 • view