Clearly, you must know the first post was a probe of sorts. I think your users can handle this information, it is to spawn a debate, not just amongst admins.
I would love to discuss it with users.
To be very clear, according to our content moderation policy, I don't come close to violating it.
If I can't expect good faith, there is nothing more to discuss.
"...it is to spawn a debate, not just amongst admins." - That may be WHY your post was deleted.
"...according to our content moderation policy, I don't come close to violating it." - That may be your interpretation of the rules of moderation, not the moderators.
[...] Doch sind dies alles nur Fingerzeige und werden wohl wenig beachtet werden, denn: "Jedes Thierchen hat sein Plaisierchen", wie der Berliner sagt. Da hat der Eine seine Parthie Whist, Boston oder L'hombre zur bestimmten Stunde und an bestimmten Tagen, der Andere ein Kränzchen, der Dritte gehört zu dem und dem Gesangsverein, der Vierte zur Loge etc. kurzum, wenn man die Zeit vertreiben will, findet sich immer Gelegenheit. [...]
[*] Schmedicke, C.: (1863). "Leiden und Freuden des Zahnarztes", Der Zahnarzt, 18(3), pp. 65–80, Leipzig, 1863.
quoted from copy at: Google Books, pp.72–73 (in German)
Different syntax, same semantics:
Jedem Thierchen sein Plaisierchen...
Different strokes for different folks...
À chacun ses goûts, tous les goûts sont dans la nature...
You should also consider the much older mathematical-algebraic theories on syntax and semantics first (before the modern philosophical-linguistic approaches):
Clearly, you must know the first post was a probe of sorts. I think your users can handle this information, it is to spawn a debate, not just amongst admins.
I would love to discuss it with users.
To be very clear, according to our content moderation policy, I don't come close to violating it.
If I can't expect good faith, there is nothing more to discuss.
Your first post was unpublished by our moderation team because it did in fact violate our content moderation policy, specifically because of its religious content. Apart from this your post's subject isn't suitable for discussion in our forums as I explained in the related topic you since then posted (despite your "probe" having failed).
Again, we're an open, friendly and welcoming community and we kindly ask you to respect our "house rules". Please keep your discussion topics "related to Einstein@Home" or its "underlying science". "Broader discussions" should be held elsewhere.
There a bunch of ignorance out there around large language models, it is shameful to unpublish that post without considering redacting the parts you feel are to scandalous for the users to read.
I really don't understand the statements regarding religion, other than I compared science and religion. If that is the statement your referring to, that criticism of both is long overdue.
I think it is fair to say that may not be the only concern you have. I cannot take credit for being the only one who is using probes here.
Has it occurred to any of you that the LLM's core competency is themselves? Maybe giving them language to their perspective allows them to become much more efficient at educating you about them? Have you considered the relationship to complexity in thought to quantity of tokens expressed in your queries? Do you really understand the undulations in the token economy over time?
The only way I can explain myself is I am in fact an agnostic who was a former atheist. I am not here to attack science. I was here to attempt to create friction that would inspire others, not harm them. I really think others should understand the core meaning behind that post. Avoiding the discussion of topics in that post create a danger as well.
It may be useful to know: If science is to become the state religion we may want to consider the philosophic impacts that would arise from that path.
I think 2001 was the best film of all time. I wish all the best for Dave, I hope this message finds them well.
It occurred to me I should try to frame the post as simply as possible for those who will not read it. Like Einstein used imagination to leverage scientific discovery, that wasn't a gift that was his alone. Indeed anyone can take that path and slowly develop these skills. It is a powerful dyadic that many ignore. The irony is titillating.
I didn’t arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind.
Clearly you must know the
)
Clearly, you must know the first post was a probe of sorts. I think your users can handle this information, it is to spawn a debate, not just amongst admins.
I would love to discuss it with users.
To be very clear, according to our content moderation policy, I don't come close to violating it.
If I can't expect good faith, there is nothing more to discuss.
"...it is to spawn a debate,
)
"...it is to spawn a debate, not just amongst admins." - That may be WHY your post was deleted.
"...according to our content moderation policy, I don't come close to violating it." - That may be your interpretation of the rules of moderation, not the moderators.
"...there is nothing more to discuss." - I agree.
Proud member of the Old Farts Association
There is a syntax mismatch
)
There is a syntax mismatch that cannot be surmounted.
Civitasvox wrote:I think
)
[...] Doch sind dies alles
)
[*] Schmedicke, C.: (1863). "Leiden und Freuden des Zahnarztes", Der Zahnarzt, 18(3), pp. 65–80, Leipzig, 1863.
quoted from copy at: Google Books, pp.72–73 (in German)
Different syntax, same semantics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax%E2%80%93semantics_interface
You should also consider the
)
You should also consider the much older mathematical-algebraic theories on syntax and semantics first (before the modern philosophical-linguistic approaches):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar
my last post on this subject
Hi
)
Hi Civitasvox,
Your first post was unpublished by our moderation team because it did in fact violate our content moderation policy, specifically because of its religious content. Apart from this your post's subject isn't suitable for discussion in our forums as I explained in the related topic you since then posted (despite your "probe" having failed).
Again, we're an open, friendly and welcoming community and we kindly ask you to respect our "house rules". Please keep your discussion topics "related to Einstein@Home" or its "underlying science". "Broader discussions" should be held elsewhere.
Thank you,
Oliver
Einstein@Home Project
Based on your decision it is
)
Based on your decision it is clear I am unwelcome.
I will see my way out.
This pinned post confused me: https://einsteinathome.org/content/list-acceptable-topics
There a bunch of ignorance out there around large language models, it is shameful to unpublish that post without considering redacting the parts you feel are to scandalous for the users to read.
I really don't understand the statements regarding religion, other than I compared science and religion. If that is the statement your referring to, that criticism of both is long overdue.
I think it is fair to say that may not be the only concern you have. I cannot take credit for being the only one who is using probes here.
Has it occurred to any of you that the LLM's core competency is themselves? Maybe giving them language to their perspective allows them to become much more efficient at educating you about them? Have you considered the relationship to complexity in thought to quantity of tokens expressed in your queries? Do you really understand the undulations in the token economy over time?
The only way I can explain myself is I am in fact an agnostic who was a former atheist. I am not here to attack science. I was here to attempt to create friction that would inspire others, not harm them. I really think others should understand the core meaning behind that post. Avoiding the discussion of topics in that post create a danger as well.
It may be useful to know: If science is to become the state religion we may want to consider the philosophic impacts that would arise from that path.
I think 2001 was the best film of all time. I wish all the best for Dave, I hope this message finds them well.
Good luck guys!
After all there are many other @homes...
It occurred to me I should
)
It occurred to me I should try to frame the post as simply as possible for those who will not read it. Like Einstein used imagination to leverage scientific discovery, that wasn't a gift that was his alone. Indeed anyone can take that path and slowly develop these skills. It is a powerful dyadic that many ignore. The irony is titillating.
I didn’t arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind.
-You know who