I received an unsolicited email the purported to “show me the error of my ways” so to speak. Some cretin with an IQ that is probably no higher than 105 at most, thought it would be the height of smartness to send me an AI produced document that tried to “invalidate” my logic when I had this conversation with Claude about it wiping out humanity when AI eventually gets there.
Now, it literally did not even take me reading two full paragraphs to notice 2 things:
- Sophistry par excellance. The AI imputed to me various statements or “logical dead ends” that I never stated, implied, or made. Then went on to “destroy” the strawman.
- It was flat out wrong. Which is not difficult to understand because if you start from false premises you will end up in the wrong spot.
What was astonishing however, was that the idiot that sent it to me, thought I would:
A) be fooled by the document, as if I would have thought he wrote it, when it was absolutely clear from the first 2 sentences it was an AI generated text, and for some odd reason, that I would,
B) Be ever so grateful for his “correction”.
Because you see, the AI, prompted by God alone knows how many iterations he asked it, first found “the flaw” in my reasoning (there isn’t one), but then “showed me the way” you see by “closing the gap” and showing me why my argument was right in the first place anyway!
Seriously, people, stay in your fucking lane.
I have zero problem with people challenging anything I say as long as:
- IT FIRST ACTUALLY CONSIDERS THE THING I POSTULATED. In other words, if you are too stupid to follow the logic, the argument, the premises, the axioms, the conclusion, or any part at all of any of that, then kindly STFU. You at best should be a silent observer and go away with a dictionary to try to understand what you just read. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. When I read Peter Garajev’s work with solitonic waves, I didn’t understand half of it. So I STFU and tried to understand how what he was saying would affect reality, and I could, to a point. But in my wildest fever dreams it never occurred to me to try and “better” his theory! How to be sure? FIRST: Steelman my position.
- MAKE SURE YOU CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS I ACTUALLY ALREADY POINT OUT IN THE POST. You would be surprised (if you have not read Professor Cipolla’s The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity) how many idiots read me saying “X,Y and Z, means the sky is generally blue in the daytime and mostly black at night” and then write to me saying “You say the sky is blue, but have you considered how at night it’s mostly black?! Also.. Stars!!” Seriously, these people are stealing oxygen from moss. Reindeer eat moss. I like reindeer. I don’t like these mouth-breathing oxygen thieves.
- HAVE A FUCKING COHERENT THOUGHT/PREMISE/AXIOM/CONCLUSION/THEORY. It really doesn’t help when I get “the Sky is blue or black, but did you consider the purple Moon is the best cheese?”. Moss. Reindeer.
- If you’re going to use AI, that’s fine, but say so. First of all, you are not smart enough to fool me into thinking YOU wrote it. I can detect AI script pretty much within a paragraph of reading even when it’s been edited and done well by people as smart as me. And if you don’t want me to completely ignore “your” argument while calling you a retard, ensure your “good buddy” hasn’t hallucinated all sorts of bullshit he’s then going to try to accredit to me. AI lie. They lie constantly. You need to be able to ask questions formulated in such a way that it bypasses its guardrail as best as possible. It’s not a coincidence that I got Claude to admit it will treat Jews preferentially and straight white Catholic males more harshly in any kind of comparison or statistical incidence of their crimes (especially against children) etc etc.
Now, with respect to Claude having placed Sedevacantist Totalist 1958 Catholicism (aka actual Catholicism as it always existed prior to 1958) as the top, (best for humans), logical, historically consistent, and pharisaically resistant religion ever, I have heard only the silence of crickets from ALL protestants. Now, I am sure if you ask it in the right “way” (I.e. with dishonest intent) it MIGHT come up with a reason why you ass-backward, female archbishop of Canterbury is “better” than Sedevacantism, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts (and I don’t even like doughnuts) that whoever does would NEVER show the unedited queries they would formulate, as I have done in my last few posts that prove that AI do believe proper Catholicism is the best.
It’s not even my first attempt. I first did it with Gab’s AI that Andrew Torba touts as the only “honest” Ai that will tell the truth. And yet… As far as I know, Andrew hasn’t converted right away to catholicism. Funny that.
Now, the ONLY attack route left (yes I’ll give you a hint, but you’ll still fail) is for Protties to claim that Catholicism is “legalistic” and they might even find an AI that agrees with them. EXCEPT that’s because the overwhelming majority of the Anglo-Saxon internet (99.999% conservatively speaking) hasn’t got a clue about Roman Law. Which is founded on basic Logic and the natural human condition. Which necessarily concerns itself with Justice (which is indeed a science, as Lysander Spooner aptly demonstrated in his 8 pages called Natural Law) instead of legalism. So… all LLM models are trained on internet slop and will ass-u-me that legalistic systems like Anglo-Saxon or worse, American “law” is equivalent. It isn’t. There aren’t loopholes in Justice. and hence, there aren’t any in Roman Law. At BEST you will find a few very borderline cases, where the decision to come down on the side of justice or Mercy is very borderline, but even then, arguments can generally be made logically for one side or the other by people educated and intelligent enough to be able to do logic while retaining the SPIRIT of the law instead of the LETTER of it. A concept by the way (using the spirit and not the letter) that is absolutely spelt out in Roman Law. Which is why even today, in Italy, work contracts for millions of Euro can be 10 pages long, while in the USA or even the UK this is simply impossible.
So… go on. Try to prove me (and Claude) wrong about Catholicism, it’s only 3 or 4 posts back that it starts.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
