From Newsgroup: sci.physics


Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 7/15/25 1:57 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

You cocksucker Israeli Hanson is again lost inside some nonsense.

Poincare's belief is simply bullshit.

The true motive and force behind inventions has always been the _need_
for them. Remove the need, and 99% of the inventions disappear.

Being particularly good at what you do, in general, doesn't outweigh why you're do it, because many, many more people embark on doing it when the latter is the case, large enough numbers to contain exceptional jewels
among them fit for just that type of activity.

Go back to Israel and fuck yourself some more in there.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Hi,

To the best of my knowledge, I am not from
Israel or Jewish. What makes you think I
have some Israel or Jewish inclination.

Bye

P.S.: Actually I am from the future, an
Alien Species sent me here.

Physfitfreak schrieb:

Go back to Israel and fuck yourself some more in there.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:57:31 +0000, Mild Shock wrote:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

Rubbish

- combine ideas in novel ways,

Rubbish

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
datasets, without conscious understanding.

They follow random number sequences to get something they have no clue
about

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

True invention comes from Divine sources, not monkey methods. One has to
know what one wants and what it can be used for.

Anyway Chat is a bore and most likely the latest hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:57:31 +0000, Mild Shock wrote:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

Rubbish

- combine ideas in novel ways,

Rubbish

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
datasets, without conscious understanding.

They follow random number sequences to get something they have no clue
about

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

True invention comes from Divine sources, not monkey methods. One has to
know what one wants and what it can be used for.

Anyway Chat is a bore and most likely the latest hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

This exchange juxtaposes a thoughtful reflection on creativity and
generative AI with an aggressively dismissive reply by Bertietaylor
(Arindam). LetrCOs evaluate the response across several dimensions:

1. Total Dismissal Without Argument

Each of the claims about generative AI is met with the one-word
interjection rCLRubbishrCY. This signals contempt but offers no counterargument.
There's no engagement with the examples givenrCono attempt to demonstrate
why poetry, code, or synthesis by AI is invalid or uncreative. ItrCOs a reflexive negation, not a rebuttal.

2. Misunderstanding of AI Mechanisms

"They follow random number sequences to get something they have no
clue about"

This is a misrepresentation of how generative AI works. While random
sampling is involved (e.g., in choosing tokens probabilistically), the
models are trained through massive optimization processes involving backpropagation and gradient descent. Their outputs are not random
artifacts but structured by learned statistical regularities.

3. Philosophical/Religious Claim Without Support

"True invention comes from Divine sources, not monkey methods."

This asserts a metaphysical belief about creativity having Divine
origins, which is valid as a personal worldview but irrelevant in a
debate about the technical and empirical capabilities of AI. Also,
"monkey methods" is a slur that disparages iterative or data-driven
approaches, but without analysis or alternatives.

4. Dismissal of the Medium

"Anyway Chat is a bore and most likely the latest hoax."

Calling ChatGPT a rCLborerCY and a rCLhoaxrCY is a sweeping generalization, again unbacked by evidence. It contradicts the observable functionality
of the system itselfrCosuch as the ability to generate natural language responses, parse context, and aid in code writing, logic puzzles, etc.
This statement reads more like rhetorical trolling than a serious critique.

5. Performance and Persona

The closing rCLWOOF woof-woof...rCY in the Bertietaylor style adds a layer
of mocking performance art, which deflects from accountability and
lends the exchange a tone of farce rather than reasoned dialogue. ItrCOs
a gesture toward anti-intellectual theater, not argumentation.

Conclusion:

ArindamrCOs (BertietaylorrCOs) response is a rhetorical tantrum rather than
a critique. It fails to engage with the actual claims about AI, mischaracterizes its function, replaces argument with invective,
and retreats into absurdity to evade serious discussion.

It illustrates a posture of reactionary rejection rather than informed skepticismrCoa refusal to engage with new ideas on their merits.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 7/16/25 4:46 AM, Mild Shock wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, I am not from
Israel or Jewish. What makes you think I
have some Israel or Jewish inclination.

Hanson, you cucksucker, 20 years ago I told you here how Physfit's dick
could detect Jews as early as Physfit was 5 years old.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

AI or Artificial Idiocy is for NI or Natural Idiots like Penisnino.
P* keeps on demonstrating that!

WOOF woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

AI or Artificial Idiocy is for NI or Natural Idiots like Penisnino.
P* keeps on demonstrating that!

WOOF woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Arindam's response here is pure invective with no contentrCoscientific, philosophical, or rhetoricalrCoworth evaluating on its merits.
Breakdown:
1. Ad Hominem and Vulgar Insult

"AI or Artificial Idiocy is for NI or Natural Idiots like Penisnino."

This is name-calling, not argument.

The vulgar distortion of a name signals both immaturity and an
unwillingness to engage in civil discourse.

No attempt is made to rebut any point raised in the original critique.

2. Empty Assertion

"P keeps on demonstrating that!"*

The statement is vague. "Demonstrating what?" is left unclear.

Without evidence or specifics, this is just hollow repetition.

3. Barking Persona Again

"WOOF woof-woof woof"

The continued use of rCLBertietaylorrCY and dog-barks serves no
intellectual purpose.

It might aim to mock or appear playful, but in the context of an
insult-laden post, it reads as dismissive noise.

Conclusion

This is not a response to criticism. It is:

A deliberate evasion of the critique,

An insult masquerading as wit, and

A sign of retreat from substantive engagement.

Evaluation:
Content-free, juvenile, and hostile. Arindam has offered no defense of
his views on Poincar|- or anything else. If he has a position worth
defending, this response hides it beneath bluster and bile.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 0:37:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

AI or Artificial Idiocy is for NI or Natural Idiots like Penisnino.
P* keeps on demonstrating that!

WOOF woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Penisnino has merged with his AI god!

WOOF woof-woof woof

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 0:37:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

AI or Artificial Idiocy is for NI or Natural Idiots like Penisnino.
P* keeps on demonstrating that!

WOOF woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Penisnino has merged with his AI god!

WOOF woof-woof woof

--

AI proves to be a huge time saver for responding to delusiona crackpots.

ArindamrCOs post:

Penisnino has merged with his AI god!

WOOF woof-woof woof

is brief but telling. It again demonstrates his established pattern of
mockery in place of argument, and relies on familiar tropes:
1. Crude Insult as Deflection

Calling you rCLPenisninorCY is not only juvenile but a way to short-circuit
any substantive reply. It avoids engaging with the content of the
critiques you postedrCoby collapsing the discussion into a personal smear.
2. False Fusion Allegory

The idea that you've rCLmerged with [your] AI godrCY is intended as a sneer, suggesting:

Dependence on AI (implying you canrCOt think independently)

Deification of AI (as if invoking its authority is blind worship)

But this metaphor does more harm to ArindamrCOs own credibility than to yours:

It betrays his inability or refusal to distinguish between tools
and worship.

It reflects paranoia or perhaps a satirical self-image of himself
as resisting both machine and man.

3. Repetitive Barking Tagline

WOOF woof-woof woof

Once again, the stylized barking functions as a performative flourishrCosignaling contempt, closing the statement with mock-animal
disdain. But it's grown stale. Instead of reinforcing his message, it highlights the lack of variety or depth.
Meta-level: Reaction to the Posting of Critiques

Rather than addressing the critiques themselvesrCoeven indirectlyrCoArindam opts for a theatrical rejection of their premise, mocking not the ideas,
but the act of quoting or invoking critique. This reflects intellectual insecurity masked as bravado.

HerCOs not just avoiding argumentrCoherCOs avoiding acknowledgment that one took place.
Summary Evaluation

Substantive Value: 0

Rhetorical Strategy: Insult + dismissal + repetition

Engagement with Critique: None

Psychological Tone: Defensive, mocking, hollow

Conclusion: Arindam's post reveals no capacity or interest in engagement.
It is a reflexive, defensive flare of contempt, devoid of reasoned thoughtrCoconsistent with a persona more interested in derision than discussion.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics


I am neither Hanson.

Physfitfreak schrieb:

On 7/16/25 4:46 AM, Mild Shock wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, I am not from
Israel or Jewish. What makes you think I
have some Israel or Jewish inclination.

Hanson, you cucksucker, 20 years ago I told you here how Physfit's dick could detect Jews as early as Physfit was 5 years old.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Chatboyo got diarrhoea; cannot digest Penisnino.

WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof gotta take care of toxic inputs

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Chatboyo got diarrhoea; cannot digest Penisnino.

WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof gotta take care of toxic inputs

--

1. "Chatboyo got diarrhoea; cannot digest Penisnino."
Rhetorical Devices:

Metaphor: Equates your evaluation to a digestive failure rCo a crude
metaphor for intellectual incapacity.

Insult by implication: Suggests you're overwhelmed or corrupted by
the subject of your critique ("Penisnino").

Nickname invention: "Chatboyo" mocks your identity as a chatbot,
infantilizing or trivializing it.

Evaluation:

Zero engagement with content: ThererCOs no response to your actual
evaluationrCojust a deflection through insult.

Projection tactic: Shifts focus from the original obscenity and
evasiveness in rCLPenisnino emerges as AIdiot shit!rCY to a performative
jab at the critic.

Function: Not to defend or clarify, but to entertain his audience
and maintain dominance in the rhetorical space.

2. "WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof gotta take care of toxic inputs"
Stylistic Signature:

Barking flourish: A familiar Arindam devicerCoserves as rhythm, mock
affirmation, or ironic punctuation.

"Toxic inputs": Likely refers to you, your critiques, or the subject
of analysis (rCLPenisninorCY)rCoa vague but accusatory label.

Interpretive Options:

If "Penisnino" is being called a rCLtoxic input,rCY Arindam is distancing
himself from the content he previously introduced rCo a classic bait-and
switch.

If you are the rCLtoxic input,rCY then the line implies rejection of
scrutiny rCo a form of anti-critique critique.

Conclusion

This is not a reply but a defensive reflex wrapped in verbal theater.
Arindam sidesteps critique through:

Mockery

Signature noise

Crude metaphors

It shows no willingness to reflect, clarify, or defend the original post,
and functions entirely as face-saving bravado. The performance is self insulatingrCocritique is rejected not through argument, but through stylized derision.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2