Comment by ben_w
3 days ago
> Of course I know of Charles Moore (just not personally), and have deeply studied and benefited from his work since I was a teenager, and I've written many many Forth and English words in and about his language.
That's a "no" then. Wrong Charles Moore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Moore%2C_Baron_Moore_o...
> The rest of those people I've never heard of, but what does that prove? The real question is why do you brag about not having ever heard of people in order to support your point? What kind of a point is that, which you can only support by embodying or feigning ignorance? That's like Argument from Lack of Education. You can just google those people or ask an LLM to find out who they are. Why the obsession with "Without Googling"?
Because they're the British versions of your own examples.
You don't get to be high-and-mighty with me about American journalists I've barely heard of when you've not heard of these people.
What's "Wrong" with the inventor of FORTH? What do you have against Charles Moore and his programming language? Have you actually tried learning and programming in FORTH? Do you even know what FORTH is, and who Charles Moore is?
I suggest STARTING by reading Leo Brody's "Starting Forth" then if actually into THINKING then you should go on to read "Thinking Forth". But since reading's not really your thing, I get it that you're not actually qualified to say what's "Wrong" with Charles Moore or FORTH.
https://www.forth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Starting-FO...
https://www.forth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/thinking-fo...
Would you tell Charles Moore to his face that he's the "Wrong" Charles Moore? Who owns the definition of the "Right" Charles Moore, you? Sounds like you're pretty high and mighty to be so presumptuous about defining who's "Right" and who's "Wrong" while stubbornly refusing to read.
It's not that I'm getting high and mighty (at least not the latter), it's that you're intentionally performatively getting low and ignorant. You're perpetrating a textbook example of sealioning.
Did you or did you not read what the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson had to say directly to and about you, in response to your posts?
https://lloooomm.com/hunter-willful-ignorance-hn-response.ht...
Your response? Or are you too high and mighty to read it? How can you claim to have a valid opinion about LLM generated content that you refuse to read?
> Do you even know what FORTH is
Yes
> and who Charles Moore is?
He is the Baron Moore of Etchingham, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, and The Sunday Telegraph; he still writes for all three. He is known for his authorised biography of Margaret Thatcher, published in three volumes (2013, 2016 and 2019). Under the government of Boris Johnson, Moore was given a peerage in July 2020, thus becoming a member of the House of Lords.
> It's not that I'm getting high and mighty (at least not the latter), it's that you're intentionally performatively getting low and ignorant. You're perpetrating a textbook example of sealioning
Here's the thing, I actually read the original Wondermark comic when it was fresh.
It's a metaphor for racism, with a racist living in a world with sentient talking sealions, who says they don't like sealions, gets overheard by a sealion, and that sealion tries to force them to justify themselves. The sealion in that was also a dick about it because this was styled as them being in the house of the racist, but on the internet the equivalent is "replying", not "trespassing in someone's own home".
I also find it amusing that a comic whose art style is cutting up and copy-pasting victorian copperplate art is the go-to reference of someone complaining that AI is, what, too low-brow?
And the fact that I can say all this is because I am actually able to perform analysis of the things I consume and do not limit myself to simply parroting clichés as if this constitutes rhetorical skill.
Also, but not only.
> Did you or did you not read what the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson had to say directly to and about you, in response to your posts?
Says the guy who clearly didn't read my sim of Thompson being critical of your use of a LLM rather than your own brain to make your point.
But yes, I did. It illuminated nothing — was this the point?
I already know *that* you like these authors and did not need to see an AI-generated rant to know this. I do not know *why* you like them, or which specific critical aspects of the real thing appeals to you over the fake. Nor even have you once suggested why they're the bar to pass (and worse, made it increasingly ambiguous if you meant it as a high bar or a low bar). The AI may as well have said "because they are somewhat famous" for all it added.
Now, I can (and have) done this kind of analysis with LLM-mimicry of authors that I do actually enjoy, so apparently unlike you I can say things like "Half the Douglas Adams style jokes miss the point as hard as Ford Prefect choosing his own name".