Junk Folder for Derails

[Nessie]

It is scientifically and evidentially wrong, to discuss the evidence from chemical testing, in isolation, without looking at, or cherry picking, the other evidence.

[Nessie]

AI is learning how to spot Holocaust denier/revisionist arguments, how they are flawed and how to answer them.

[HansHill]

The poster above is off-topic as always but he needs to be called out that LLMs do not "learn" in any meaningful way, rather they are fed and trained on carefully curated datasets with strict guardrails, and generate output using predictive text models based on pattern emergence.

We just had a 6 month masterclass demonstration from a different poster on these exact failings, right here on this forum. To call this "learning" in any meaningul way is foolish if not downright dishonest.

[Nessie]

AI understands that so-called revisionist arguments that there was not enough evidence of wood being taken to and stored at the AR camps and used on the pyres, for them to work and be capable of cremating hundreds of thousands of corpses, is not evidence to prove there were no such mass pyres.

[HansHill]

1 - Grow up
2 - Reported

[Nessie]

HansHill, the images you post are not viewable in my region. Could you at least say what is in them?

The wood requirement for a pyre of decomposing, naked corpses, is far less than you think it should be.

[HansHill]

Q: Do LLMs understand what they are outputting?

A: No, large language models (LLMs) do not understand their outputs in the way humans do; they generate responses based on statistical patterns and probabilities without true comprehension. Their "knowledge" is derived from the data they were trained on, not from an understanding of the content.

[Nessie]

If AI cannot work out how the pyres worked, based on the limited information available about wood requirements, that does not evidence there were no pyres.

[Nessie]

Why? Because as we all know the claims of the 6m dreaded and gas chambers do not stand up to critical analysis despite the IIDF representatives here, who are paid by the kilo, banging on and bloody on about it. The claims don't stand scrutiny.

What you so-called revisionists do, is not genuine, historical revision. Your supposed analysis is evidentially and logically flawed.

[Archie]

Why? Because as we all know the claims of the 6m dreaded and gas chambers do not stand up to critical analysis despite the IIDF representatives here, who are paid by the kilo, banging on and bloody on about it. The claims don't stand scrutiny.

What you so-called revisionists do, is not genuine, historical revision. Your supposed analysis is evidentially and logically flawed.

Nessie, please don't comment unless you have something to say. Far too many of your comments (like the above) are lacking in substance.

A reminder from the forum rules:

Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.

[Nessie]

scale of the evidence.

There you have it gentlemen. The quality, veracity, accuracy, accountability, plausibility, or possibility of the claims don't matter; only their "scale" (ie how many times they get repeated).

Thank you Nessie, looks like i'm done with you here, and i'm sure i'll see you in a future thread.

By scale, I do not just mean volume, but also quality.

Yet again, you lie, by suggesting I do not think quality, veracity, accuracy, accountability, plausibility, or possibility matter. THEY DO MATTER.

The way you assess quality, veracity, accuracy, accountability, plausibility, or possibility, is wrong, distorted, has no basis in the reality of how historical or criminal investigations are conducted. For example, you ignore the majority of the studies of witnesses and witness evidence. Your way is designed to make evidence you do not want to believe, fail. It is biased and rooted in logically flawed arguments.

Of course you will run away from debating me about the way you investigate, since you know, you are wrong. At least with Grok, it accepted it was wrong.