To think that I'm saying all humans intend to produce truth you'd have to intentionally misread my comment. Wikipedia obviously has to deal with bad actors and vandalism, and they have processes in place for that. My point is that the intent matters.

Calculators aren't a useful analogy for LLMs. They produce a deterministic output based on a (relatively) narrow range of inputs. The calculations to produce those outputs follow very rigid and well defined rules.

LLMs by their very nature are non-deterministic, and the inputs/outputs are far more complicated.

> Wikipedia obviously has to deal with bad actors and vandalism

People produce false information for many reasons besides malice, and even when they intend to be honest.

Look how much bad information was out there before the advent of scientific method.

You're aware that if you don't have anything useful or interesting to contribute to the conversation you can just not comment right?

That's right: People turn to insults when they have nothing to say on the merits.

It's not an insult when it's true. I don't think you've made one comment that actually added something useful. I did my best to reply to what was there, but you didn't give me anything to work with. Your last comment was so unrelated there was no where left to go.

If you have something actually relavent to say you're welcome to say it.

Here's an opportunity to talk about listening, epistemology, and human intercourse:

> It's not an insult when it's true.

It's not slander, but it's certainly an insult. If you tell someone they are fat and ugly, it's an insult regardless of its truth and you shouldn't say it, ever. There's never a good reason for personal insults.

> it's true

> you're welcome to

This assumes your perspective is truth. That is the case for nobody in the world; in fact, I also have a perspective that I'm confident in, as do many others. Your statements also assume that, perhaps as the arbiter of truth, you have some authorization or power to enforce it. Again, that's nobody's business.

We're in a world of peers, generally speaking, and none of us know who is right. We need strategies to navigate that world, not the one where truth is given to you.

> you didn't give me anything to work with

When I feel like you do, it's a signal I need to listen better - the other person probably does have something to say and I'm missing it. It's possible we're talking past each other, but that's never a reason for insults.

(human intercourse)

Note that the signal is that I need to do something, not the other person. That's not because I'm 'wrong' or 'right' - those are mostly unknowable and irrelevant because 1) We're in a world of peers, generally speaking, and none of us know who is right. Also, 2) I'm the only one I can control and am responsible for, and ...

3) Respecting other people is always more important. That's a strategy for, and wisdom in, a world of uncertainty (as described), as opposed to a world of certainty. Also, it's a strategy for social creatures in social groups - it keeps groups strong and functioning. Finally, it's strategy for both loving and respecting yourself - you deserve it. You're better than insults, I'm sure; and I sometimes say the wrong thing, but I'm better than that too.