zlacker

The goal of HN is not “win argument” but curious debate. You know what I meant.

>>random+(OP)
What was "curious debate" about your terse and wholly incorrect quip?

For the purposes of my education and socialisation to HN.

>>psychp+Ni
Previous poster said that GPT is to writing what calculators are to math. That's an interesting point, is this an analogy we can reason with?

My terse response was "no, because calculators are correct all the time whereas GPT is incorrect a lot of time". So, that reasoning can't be used. Need a different one.

So we conclude, no that's not a good analogy.

>>random+7I1
So you're ignoring proof that calculators aren't correct all the time(infact given most numbers are irrational calculators are always mostly wrong and imprecise). And stating your incorrect view as fact.

That's what you mean by curious debate? Bizarre!

P.s. this is why it's a good analogy you've learnt something about calculators from thinking about the analogy as well as chatGPT

>>psychp+aZ1
The existence of irrational numbers is in no way analogous to saying “the king of England is George V” and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

My general approach to discussion is to assume the most generous interpretation of a post.

>>random+im5
Just seems like you're ignoring that calculators are only very rarely correct.

But you do you.