"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <[email protected]> writes: > Rudolf Adamkovič <[email protected]> writes: >> But, such reasoning does not apply in this thread, because the meaning >> of the term innovative is left undefined and keeps changing, while the >> final answer remains fixed to >> >> "there is no example of innovation by the LLM". > > I’d suggest that you read my other reasoning in this thread before you > make that your final fixed judgement.
I apologize for miscommunication. I did not mean to address you in particular but the thread in general. All I meant to say is: The original question cannot be answered objectively unless the key term "innovation" is defined with sufficient precision. Until then, everyone is subjectively correct, per their own definition of the term. Rudy -- "'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'" --- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1871/1872 Rudolf Adamkovič <[email protected]> [he/him] http://adamkovic.org --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
