Comment by giov4
2 hours ago
putting random questions and confused informations that make no sense is only a tentative of distorting the conversation further and going off topic.
2 hours ago
putting random questions and confused informations that make no sense is only a tentative of distorting the conversation further and going off topic.
>putting random questions
everything I posted was in response to you; nothing is random.
>confused informations
Just saying they're confused is meaningless; if you think I am wrong about something, feel free to give actual rebuttals.
>tentative
This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.
please stop trolling and provoking.
a statement like this is clearly on purpose:
>a tentative of misinformation >>What does this mean?
claiming not knowing what tentative means in english is clearly on purpose and could anyway be translated if it was a language problem.
again here:
>tentative >>This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.
Everybody knows what a tentative is and also looking it up and reporting a single possible translation of its meaning is just ridiculous.
again stop dragging the conversation off topic and stop on purpose provoking.
the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention and your previous content does not add any value.
for the sake of clarity to the readers I will report here the points more clearly again:
- mentioning SEO,AEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. moving the attention to an off topic relationship.
- the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an accusation without any reasoning or logic backing it up
- The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. and thats the main point and target.
I will not waste more time on replying to purposely fabricated statements or questions.
>please stop trolling and provoking.
That is not my intent.
I have spoken English my whole life and have never heard anyone use "tentative" as a noun. Why must you assume I am trolling, why can you not believe what I am saying? Is it possible that you are using the wrong word? It seems noteworthy to me that you did not actually answer my question or provide a definition for how you are using, you chose to assume bad faith on my part instead and use that as a basis to dismiss the actual arguments I made.
That said, I would be happy to stop arguing about the word "tentative". I would much rather you engage with the substantive arguments that I made.
>the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention
What repeated statements? If it's important to you for understanding then pick something that I repeated and I can try to explain.
> ::your three list items::
These are just repeating of arguments that I made and offered responses to. You have chosen to not respond to them.
Let's pick one and try again:
> The article clearly explain the information poisoning
If you search the article for "poison", there is exactly one reference: "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'" The word "refer links to an article by Anthropic that is categorically unrelated. Go read that article and answer: does their definition of "poisoning" match what the author of this post means?
I would say no: the article says "malicious actors can inject specific text into these posts to make a model learn undesirable or dangerous behaviors, in a process known as poisoning", and then follows up with an example of "introducing backdoors". That is very different than whatever the Hanover Institute site is doing.
If you would prefer to argue substance, answer me that: did the author cite that paper correctly? I am saying "no" and have given a reason, what is your response?