The point you were arguing yesterday was wrong. If you want to say “yeah, I didn’t understand what I was talking about; I have now learned a lot and I understand why GPT isn’t useful in the way that I thought it was,” you should just say that.
It’s actually admirable that he’s taken in new information and refined his position, but the problem is he won’t admit that he’s doing it. And then projecting his stubborn insistence onto others.
Without a demonstration of understanding that his previous position was based in error, I don’t actually know if he has refined his position or is just telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
Ah, apparently he’s put me on a mute list on the basis that I … *peers* … “seek to take away assistive technologies like GPTs and other machine learning technologies, and thus seek to strip people of their voices, or who are ignorantly against blockchain technology and other innovative technologies”
Don't know if I'm late to this particular aspect of the conversation, but I heard today of a crypto platform where disputes are resolved by majority vote of as many platform users as want to participate (risking some of their coins if they're in the minority; rewarded if in the majority)
