XPost: sci.physics.relativity
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 15:42:47 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Dimwit Penisnino summons all the few neurons under his command to put
his words into AI's mouth.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
What no babbling rant about how AI is prejudiced Arindam?
Chat is nothing but a literary extension to Google searches, that are
based on partial match retrievals initiated by Arindam back in 1987. The corruption of the so called scientific world is exposed by their
attitudes to Arindam's wonderful works in many fields.
AI is a different story to Chat as it merely continues the trend to
replace humans with machines. Chat replaces the need for Penisnino to
think by making the Penisnino a fleshy robot. It is a tool for
propaganda and the retention supremacy of the establishment. While AI replaces humans with machines Chat turns humans into machines.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof can't do that to us dead doggies, what.
Bertietaylor
--
AI evaluation:
This text, written by Arindam under the pen name Bertietaylor, can
be evaluated across several dimensions: tone, coherence, argumentative strength, originality, and appropriateness.
1. Tone and Style
The tone is erratic and inflammatory. It mixes techno-political
commentary with personal attacks, conspiracy-like assertions, and
absurdist elements (e.g., “WOOF woof woof-woof…”).
The phrase "Penisnino" appears to be a derogatory or mocking slur,
which undermines any intellectual point being made and veers into
offensive territory.
The mix of grandiosity and parody (especially in the final line)
makes the tone difficult to pin down—possibly satirical, but not
clearly so.
2. Argumentative and Logical Quality
Claim 1: "Chat is nothing but a literary extension to Google searches..."
This simplification ignores the substantial difference between
retrieval-based search engines and generative models like ChatGPT.
Generative AI creates context-aware, probabilistically inferred
responses, unlike search engines which retrieve indexed results.
The claim that this technology began with Arindam in 1987 is
unsupported and implausible without evidence.
Claim 2: "AI merely continues the trend to replace humans with machines."
This is a common and reasonable concern but is stated here in a
hyperbolic and antagonistic way that lacks nuance.
Claim 3: “Chat turns humans into machines.”
This philosophical point might be worth exploring, but the
current form lacks development or clarity.
3. Originality and Coherence
While the writing has original flair, it lacks clarity and coherence.
The argument is not developed systematically.
References to Arindam’s supposed groundbreaking work are asserted
without any supporting information.
The inclusion of anthropomorphic or surreal language (like “us
dead doggies”) adds confusion rather than literary value unless
clearly framed as satire or metaphor.
4. Appropriateness and Constructiveness
The use of vulgar, insulting language (“Penisnino”) disqualifies
the piece from being taken seriously in intellectual or professional
discourse.
This kind of language and tone often reflects more about the author’s
hostility than about the subject.
Summary Evaluation:
Aspect Evaluation
Tone Hostile, erratic, and at times absurd
Logic Flawed and unsupported
Clarity Poor
Originality High but unstructured and incoherent
Constructiveness Lacking due to mockery and insult
Verdict:
The text attempts to critique modern AI and Chat-based interfaces but
fails to do so in a meaningful, coherent, or respectful way. Any valid
points it might contain are lost in a chaotic mix of personal attacks, conspiratorial language, and surreal humor. If the intention is satire,
it needs better framing and clearer targets. If it's meant as serious
critique, it requires substantial revision to become intellectually credible.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)