162
ChatGPT 'got absolutely wrecked' by Atari 2600 in beginner's chess match — OpenAI's newest model bamboozled by 1970s logic (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/retrogaming@lemmy.world
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (7 children)

Yep, go up the thread and see which claim was made first ;)

Of course you would try this, since as I already said, it’s propaganda, doesn’t exist. Can’t throw your hat in an argument, then balk when questioned lmfao.

Edit, I also always asked elsewhere, so why hasn’t someone brought any of its marketed this way?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Yep, go up the thread and see which claim was made first ;)

    Okay. Ah . . . Yep, it was yours.

    The general public understands this isn’t some be all end all.

    So that’s the claim, and it was made first. Now. Let’s see that link!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    And ACTUALLY up the chain…

    https://lemmy.world/comment/17567218

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh that’s a different person there. You can tell because there’s a different name on top of the comment.

    I mean, I don’t have a link to prove that though, so, maybe it is me? Hm. That’s certainly something to think about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Can’t throw your hat in an argument, then balk when questioned lmfao.

    You’re joining an argument in the middle, doesn’t matter who said it first.

    Also. How do you propose I provide you evidence that’s it’s NOT marketed? The mere lack of it, and the lack of you being able to provide any, should be ample proof for someone wanting to have a civil discourse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nuh uh, you are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yea, in a chain where the first claim was, “ai was marketed as a be all end all”. If you want to support their side with civil discourse, please provide evidence. Because all you seem to be doing here is trolling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    So you admit you have no link for your claim which came first before my claim.

    You may again defer to a third party and argue yet another claim was before yours but I say unto thee - wasn’t that claim in reference to one before it? Such a line of inquiry would inevitably lead us to The Original Claim, to which only God or maybe Sam Altman could provide the link to substantiate it.

    Therefore, in lieu of petitioning God (or Sam Altman) for a substantiating link to The Original Claim, or the person to whom you were addressing (unless it was me, we’re still checking on that) the onus falls to you to provide a link to substantiate your claim. Failure to do so will go down on your permanent record.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent