Fair point, Jayuthat. I used an AI tool to help summarize/translate the idea, but I mistakenly copy-pasted the generated output instead of digesting it and writing the reply myself. Lesson learned—I'll make sure to write everything in my own words going forward.
No.
You're not just using AI to "summarize" and "translate" your ideas. Post #24 in this this is
obviously composed by AI from the ground up. You were warned that native English speakers would easily be able to tell. It's not just the phrasing. The entire structure and rhetorical flow is highly characteristic of LLM-generated text.
Further, your post #22—the one in which you dropped the telltale $\pi$—represents the second time your AI has completely reversed the intent of the post you asked it to respond to. Your AI clearly cannot understand the arguments being made here, and I highly doubt you're taking the trouble to translate the posts between English and Portuguese so that you can attempt to understand them yourself. I suspect you're feeding posts in English to your AI and simply copying its English response into the thread.
Specifically, your AI says that we're confusing notation with the underlying structural properties. But my post #20, to which it was responding, makes the opposite case. It spells out the notation, but then uses that as a framework to investigate all the underlying abstract concepts that synthetically compose the supposed structural relation. It concludes that the amount of thinking required to note a "simple" relationship actually requires a lot of synthesis that goes beyond the mere intrinsic properties of objects. Your AI completely missed the point, which they often do.
Your AI did this too in the scientism thread. Your post #572 in that thread (also
obviously written entirely by AI) accuses my post #555 in that thread of trying to create a false dichotomy when it actually attempts to do the opposite. I doubt you were even reading many of the posts in that thread, otherwise it wouldn't have taken you dozens of pages to realize that your critics did not hold the beliefs you thought they did and—in fact—agreed with you.
Your AI is doing a poor job of debating at this forum.
Your feeble attempt to rehabilitate your AI by invoking the genetic fallacy is laughable. The genetic fallacy says a good argument can come from anywhere, and therefore that it's wrong to dismiss a good argument simply because it was written by an otherwise unreliable source. There are two problems with that. First, your AI is not providing good arguments. It's clearly unable to understand the posts you're feeding to it. Second, you are clearly unable of (or disinterested in) knowing whether your AI has generated a good argument in a language you do not speak well. Hence your invocation of the genetic fallacy is, at best, wishful.
I'll leave others to eviscerate you over your blatant and continued dishonesty.
