Yeah, see my other reply.

Im down for some strange, but not at the expense of anyone (or anything) else.

Honestly it's one of those "way more subjective than most people are willing to admit but we have made some lines anyway, because semi-arbitrary lines are how society functions".

That's before you even get in to full subjectivism's like what even is intelligence and who gets to decide where the thresholds are.

huh, that is not the answer i was expecting.

I would assume it'd be one of those "yes they consent but we don't deem them as possessing the intellectual capacity to be making that kind of decision"

Like it is with children.

This of course assumes the human side is at an acceptable intellectual level of development.

Or even the idea that the power dynamic in such an encounter would always skew significantly in the human direction, given that animals aren't usually (legally) considered the same as far as rights, agency and autonomy are concerned.

False equivalence aside.

So, genuine question.

Theoretically, if it was possible to obtain animal consent, you'd be cool with it ?

TL;DR;

Looks like we aren't going to agree on the definition of indiscriminate, I'm good with that, you do you.

I've put forth no opinion on anything other than word choice, as it relates to logical correctness.

Somehow you've taken that single issue and tacked on a bunch of moral, ethical and political standpoints that don't exist in my responses and then seem to have taken these imaginary attacks personally, i can't help you with that.

Being angry at imaginary positions other people haven't taken must be a hard way to live or at the very least, exhausting. It's certainly confusing from the outside.

I can't work with that level of misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) so let's just call it a day.

They killed people from literally every class available, branding anyone that disagreed with them 'enemies of liberty'. I am not going to argue on this point.

You don't need to argue, you just stated the selection criteria was "enemies of liberty". which i'm sure you'll agree is not "anybody for any reason", which is what it would need to be for it to be indiscriminate....because that's what indiscriminate means.

As i said i've no interest in forcing you to use the actual current definition of a word. If, to you, indiscriminate means "some discrimination, but not like, a lot" then you do you.

So the hoarding of wealth being transferred from noble families to merchant families doesn't seem unsuccessful to you in modern day? Replacing one group that hoards wealth with another doesn't seem relevant to the failings of the revolution?

Again, my bad, what I meant to say is I'm not sure how it relates to any of the points already raised.

None of the points raised by me (or my responses) have been about the connections, success or failure any systems or movements, nor have there been any stances taken on ethics or morality.

The relative merits and drawbacks of political systems and ideologies is interesting, but as i said i don't know enough about them to put forth anything other than superficial opinions, If you want i can put down my opinions for you, but i can't guarantee they'll hold up to scrutiny.

This is the reason I stop reading. You are an extremist and not worth speaking to.

I'm not sure how you got extremist from me commenting on logical errors in your phrasing, there have been no other positions taken by me in any of the responses I've posted, but feel free to point them out if you see one.

I use troglodyte regularly by the way

Congratulations ? it's a good word, well..i like it at least.

unless you’re talking about bloviating at which point; stop projecting, this is a common word.

I suspect it's less common than you think.

My comment was less projection than it was an inference based on your seeming inability to correctly use a (subjectively) more common word like indiscriminate. Seems like a reasonable leap to me but I'll take your word for it.

I’ll tell you when I stopped reading. It was the part where you tried to argue that the reign of terror wasn’t indiscriminate. People of all classes were sent to the guillotines, most of them the ones I listed. Robespierre himself was eventually killed. It is described as indiscriminate anywhere you read about it.

i said you were using the word indiscriminate incorrectly, there was discrimination. I wasn't refuting that people of all classes were killed.

As i said before, just because it doesn't meet the criteria they claimed ( or the criteria you think it should ) doesn't mean that there was no selection criteria.

If you want to claim a large majority of random people were rounded up with no criteria whatsoever, feel free.

I have no interest in trying to force you to use the correct application of a word, i was just pointing it out, the rest is on you.

What was the eventual result of the reign of terror? Oh, yes — capitalism overtaking feudalism regarding who gets to hoard the wealth. Oh boy, look how well that turned out!

I'm not sure how that's relevant but i don't have a formal opinion on it.

I didn’t read anything beyond this point

I know, i specifically put tags in to let you know where the big sentences were, i'm glad they helped.

but you have earned the tag ‘Bloviating Troglodyte’ so… congrats? I guess?

I appreciate you spending the time to look up some unique words, at least i know you've learnt something today.

Read it? probably some, understood it? not if previous responses are to be believed.

and nothing of value was lost.

TL;DR;

START READ HERE

Seems the previous TL;DR; was too long ill try to be more concise.

Two people disagreeing with you (for different reasons no less) doesn't mean they are associated, get a grip on that ego.

Grammar and logic aren't the same thing.

You've argued many positions from your imagination and not a single position that was actually taken.

There is no conversation (of this type) to be had with someone who can't separate imagination from actual text.

Good luck with life.

END READ HERE

BIG SENTENCES PAST HERE

I know long sentences aren't your thing, you can stop here, this is only so i have it written down.

Yeah I assumed you were associated with the other user in this thread — the essay and your snide comments about my word use more or less confirms this.

Two people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they know each other, I'm not sure how to even work with the level of ego it'd take to assume two dissenting opinions must be collusion, let alone the level of confusion needed to think that two entirely different opinions are somehow the same opinion because they both happen to disagree with yours.

That's going to be some lucrative therapy work for someone eventually.

By the way, don’t comment on how another person writes and then proceed to fail at capitilizing I. You can keep your essay.

Perhaps i explained it poorly, i was criticizing your word choice because that choice of words made your statements logically incorrect.

Me not capitalising an i doesn't change the logical content.

Word Choice (Logical):

The sky is always blue.

vs

The sky is currently blue.

Capitalisation (grammatical?)

I think the sky is blue

vs

i think the sky is blue

If you genuinely can't see the difference there I'm not sure I'm qualified to help you.

You can keep your essay.

That is my bad, i used too many words and it seems that's a problem.

Though i did put a TL;DR, three sentences should be fine, right ?

By the way, my point to you is the same as the other user — go out and fall on your sword or continue bloviating on an online forum

Your point was invalid the first time you made it, you've done nothing to back it up or expand upon it since then, so it remains invalid.

I'm not sure what kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to be arguing that "violence begets more violence (and is therefore bad)" and then suggest sword based suicide, seems like it'd be quite extensive though.

all I know is it smells like a couple of cowards to me.

You talk a big game for someone who hasn't actually engaged on a point they haven't imagined themselves, but you do you.

( for given values of imaginary and real, this is still only an online forum after all )

There is probably a name for someone who fights imaginary battles to avoid real ones.

hmm, actually ...i wonder if there was someone else we could point to as an example of someone who didn't engage on the talking points and went off on their own imaginary journey so they could claim victory ?

edit: reading prompts, ponderings

TL;DR;

You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.

I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.

If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.

So I'm going to break this in to two sections.

The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn't really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.

The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it

FIRST SECTION

Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here's a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.

A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.

I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.

Speaking of the options:

You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.

You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).

Neither of these make sense.

1. Nobody was arguing that all US citizens had to fall on their sword.

Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.

2. For this to be true you'd have to argue that no-one outside of the US is affected by anything happening inside the US.

I think we can both agree that you can't possibly justify that claim.

SECOND SECTION

To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.

Ok, so firstly that's a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.

Secondly the killings weren't exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.

Regardless of any of that, unless you're about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn't satisfy the word indiscriminate.

Just because it doesn't fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination.

If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably.

If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that's your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn't true.

Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that's some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.

Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.

i wasn't arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don't have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.

Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.

I wasn't implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you've said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won't hold my breath.

A false dichotomy? In this economy?

Also neither of them make sense.

Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?

Also also, I don't think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don't agree with their reasoning )

Edit : wait, no it'd need to just be fauxchotomy or that's a double negative

That's a demand.

Him actually going to prison would be a consequence if it ever happened.

Also two things can be true at once, wanting consequences and those consequences accelerating something can both be true.

Speaking from a purely technical viewpoint I'm not sure how you get acceleration from this assassination. What would accelerate exactly?

The China vs US one ?

Brigades are out in full force in those trenches

Greater compared to human code? Not sure about that, but I'm not disagreeing either. Greater compared to verified able programmers, sure, but in general?..

Both.

The reasons are quite hard to describe, which is why it's such a trap, but if you spend some time reviewing LLM code you'll see what I mean.

One reason is that it isn't coding for logical correctness it's coding for linguistic passability.

Internally there are mechanisms for mitigating this somewhat, but its not an actual fix so problems slip through.

I don't think I'm getting your point here. Do you mean by that, the code basically lacks focus on an end goal? Or are you talking about the fuzzyness and randomization of the output?

The latter, if you give it the exact same input in the exact same conditions, it's not guaranteed to give you the same output.

The fact that its sometimes close to the same actually makes it worse because then you can't tell at a glance what has changed.

It also isn't a simple as using a diff tool, at least for anything non-trivial, because it's variations can be in logical progression as well as language.

Meaning you need to track these differences across the whole contextual area which, if you are doing end to end generation, is the whole codebase.

As I said, there are mitigations, but they aren't fixes.