> because emotionally charged statements are not arguments.
Arguments can be emotionally charged or neutral. Those things are orthogonal.
> I don't have to tell the cook how he made my soup wrong if it tastes bad.
Bad analogy. Systematically refusing arguments of one side while not doing the same to the other gives onlookers a biased impression (conscious or not).
---
You can be angry all you want and try to be pedantic to "prove it", it's not gonna change anything. This conversation is over.
Yes, it's over because I've demonstrated to other, sane HN readers who find this thread in the future that you're a malicious individual who has to resort to lies and fallacies to defend his points about "equality". This is not about convincing you - this is about preventing you from deceiving others, and at this point, you've made that argument for me better than I ever could have.
> not twisted to give misleading impressions
Pretending something is worse because people don't do it is misleading (whether the other person is aware of the bias/fallacy or not)
> LLMs are trained on vast corpus of human writing and so have an extremely large amount of latent understanding of tone of language
[citation needed]
Also https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-...
> because emotionally charged statements are not arguments.
Arguments can be emotionally charged or neutral. Those things are orthogonal.
> I don't have to tell the cook how he made my soup wrong if it tastes bad.
Bad analogy. Systematically refusing arguments of one side while not doing the same to the other gives onlookers a biased impression (conscious or not).
---
You can be angry all you want and try to be pedantic to "prove it", it's not gonna change anything. This conversation is over.