Study: ChatGPT is Bad for Your Brain

Post Reply New Topic

But that's one part of the whole which you're ignoring.
Again, please read FXE's post I referenced earlier.

Established like when you imperiously said "Let me indulge in a little education for you." ?
See here for a factual response to that and to more of your comments about Bloom -
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=427939&start=16#p9712334
None of this is mocking or an attack. You are being corrected, and in some detail.

And this, another factual correction of your misunderstanding -
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=427939&start=16#p9712879

Again, here -
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=427939&start=32#p9712976

Again, about Bloom and a good example of your own snark to which you're certainly not as immune as you've suggested -
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=427939&start=32#p9712995

"Respectfully please stop embarrassing yourself, Bloom's taxonomy was developed in 1956, long before the computer age."
You demonstrate here a fundamental and gross misunderstanding of what it is and before you consider telling someone they're embarrassing themselves WRT any given topic, you'd better make very sure you fully understand it.
You didn't, and you don't.

The depth of your misunderstanding is shown again, here -
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=427939&start=32#p9713517

Have you bothered asking, or is this the level of presumptive discourse we can expect from you? -
"I know you are not actually interested in having a cordial discussion on this topic and have focused on how much smarter and clever you are than me Ok fine, you are smarter "

Skipping over that little opening argument from authority, I'll leave the specific technicalities to those more knowledgeable than myself but in general terms, you have a history of poor and careless behavior when discussing topics as has been indicated here in several ways.


It doesn't matter a flying fig whether you know about something or not, and neither is not knowing about something any reflection on your abilities.

But basic accuracy and facts matter on certain topics and when you make posts demonstrating you have neither, you will be corrected, and people will get annoyed at having to do so - frequently.

The discourse failures, disconnects and irritations occur not just because you don't know enough about certain topics to make meaningful contributions, but because you plough on regardless with more of the same despite corrections showing that you're simply out of your depth.

It doesn't appear to be fine by you, as demonstrated by your summary of situation (a poster dealing with having their claims refuted) as shameful.

The situation is compounded by that poster's long history of disruptive behaviour (as has been outlined in earlier posts), but pointing out a long history of similar disruptive behaviour really isn't shameful either. Repeatedly engaging in disruptive behaviour might be shameful though. If that's what you wish to defend, have at it. If you don't wish to defend it, don't call criticisms of the behaviour shameful.

No, it's the snarks, and what is in my opinion the blaming of the victim, that I see as shameful. If you look back far enough you'll see that the first taunts weren't made by the victim.


You can call it disruptive behaviour, but can you show me how that's so? If it's been outlined then I've not noticed anything very clear. For me, there's another who has a long history of issuing needless jibes and taunts. I think we can all agree that sniping is disruptive, and if need be I can quote the taunts that started the trouble. I'd rather have nothing more to do with this thread, but if you want me to quote them, I can. But they're not hard to find.


So far, I don't see anything disruptive in the behaviour you're talking about. Ill-informed perhaps, but if you just think somebody's posts are foolish, it's a simple matter to give a different point of view without adding snarks. If the poster continues to say what you think is foolish, just let it go. Otherwise the thread gets derailed, just like what happened here. Because of personal attacks.

The problem didn't start in this thread, it's been a long on-going issue. If you'd like to review other debate posts the 'victim' has participated in you'll see this behaviour was common even before he changed usernames.



You're welcome to quote where you think things started, but if it's in this thread, it's not where things began.



You're welcome to not consider the behaviour disruptive. Your perspective might change once you're on the receiving end of the behaviour. Ultimately you're entitled to whatever opinion you form because it's just like your opinion, man.

I find it interesting how certain people are torn apart by users and the admin for their shortcomings, yet other people who engage in rude/and or disruptive behaviour are completely left alone.

It seems more like a popularity contest than anything to me, in terms of who is targeted for a thread pile-on, versus other people who deserve the same, but who are rarely challenged on their poor behaviour, or worse, have their poor behaviour validated by others.

When incorrect statements are made it's not an issue and they're easily corrected or just ignored.

When further statements are made, compounding and extending those incorrect statements with even more incorrect statements despite corrections, it begins to look like a pattern.

When non sequiturs are added, along with tenuously related yet still misunderstood material offered as further explanation, it begins to look like a wilful disregard for any form of correction or understanding - or even an unwillingness to show basic respect to others on the thread.

This is disruptive behavior.

It's not a simple foolishness.

Sometimes facts matter to the integrity and continuation of a thread, and having their corrections repeatedly ignored becomes a derailment in itself.

Repeatedly correcting woefully incorrect statements are not personal attacks.

It would be nice if these problems could be addressed before they become widespread enough to for a pile-on to potentially occur.

Yeah, thanks for playing along. Maybe you'd like to read the details?

"Shortcomings" is not the issue. I thought that was already abundantly clear?

It doesn't matter in the slightest if someone knows nothing about a topic - blindly continuing to post incorrect information on it despite being corrected, multiple times, is the issue.

Dear god...

Very well, I accept the "surgically selected language" (in response to said snark) was unnecessary on my part. I trust you have had a similar conversation with the other party? I will leave that in your capable hands.

but the core issue of my question is this. you do realise this is a social forum?. Not a science journal.

You seem to be holding me to the level of standard an editor on the Science or Nature journal would use on a prospective author. Comes across a tad harsh. Putting it lightly. Anyway if it will help end the chaos on this thread I will accept your feedback constructively and move on.

Of course - but it doesn't mean that corrections to misunderstandings should be ignored and then repeated.

No, not that level at all: everyone posts according to their abilities and that's fine.

But it's basic good behavior to take note when corrections to something you've said are given, and if you doubt or are unsure of some details - ask for clarification and make it a cooperative learning experience.
Don't hand-wave it away and press on regardless - that just creates a bad impression.

It's a social forum, not an examination board, but it's still worth bearing in mind that respondents may have considerable experience in certain fields of interest.
That's fine too - we can't all be Einstein.

And as an aside - in response to the many complaints I've received over the years about your approach to the discussion of facts (as your previous WP incarnation), I've tended to argue for your right to be misinformed.

But there comes a point where being misinformed begins to look like an art-form; it needs repainting.

Not just my feedback, but thanks.

No worries I appreciate its a gargantuan job moderating here.

Pity chatgpt can't be trained to moderate text...but that's another story I guess...

Thank you.

Actually, someone did once use ChatGTP to analyse a section of a thread here and all it served to show was that it was no moderator.
The responses were somewhat boilerplate and tended to address short statements with no attempt at contextual evaluation, which often involves several posts and history.

It seems one thing we've learned from all of this is how bad the view from the peanut gallery is.

The peanut gallery?

And I suppose you would imagine that you might sit in a roof covered balcony seat, or the executive box, perhaps?

LMGTFY -

No, I believe in this case I was in a minor, on-stage role.

That's why I've tried saying how it looks from the inside, rather than from the outside.