PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 11:58 pm
That's probably the funniest Believer argument I've seen, Bombsaway, truly scraping the bottom of the barrel and it reeks of desperation.
I'm not opposed to asking LLMs to weigh in on certain things as long as you are aware the model has been RLFH'd to have a Kosher view of the Holocaust narrative. But that's not what is happening here.
LLMs are only as good as the context you provided. You didn't share your prompt which is a low IQ way to present this as evidence, as the extent to which LLM response has value in analyzing our reasoning is highly coupled with the prompt you have given it.
I can infer from the output that you did not provide needed context to the LLM- that we
know from documents that the trains to Treblinka stopped at various locations, including a location you have admitted had a Transit camp. For example:
The preposition "via" typically means "by way of" or "passing through." In travel contexts, it usually doesn't imply stopping or disembarking unless explicitly stated.
Of course the LLM is correct, and you have simply not provided it the context that
we know it stopped there and there is no ambiguity on that point. The stopping
is explicitly stated in the transport documents, you have merely obscured that context in your prompt.
If you provided the Fahrplanordnung Warsaw - Treblinka and asked it "can we say for certain that nobody disembarked from the train at this stop given the grammar of this single sentence from this single letter months before?" the LLM would probably respond something like- "of course it's possible people got off the train where the train stopped you fucking idiot."
It's fascinating to see such empirical validation of the weakness of the Believer method. "Analyze the grammar of this single sentence!" Not "look at all these documents, is it possible passengers got off at Malkinia where there is a Transit Camp?" You are exposing yourself my dude.
It appears your assertion is that all of the passengers got off at Camp Malkinia because Camp Treblinka was a sorting facility (despite Camp Malkinia being called Camp Treblinka when it suits you). This is possible of course, but the document doesn't suggest it. As I said, and then the AI said, that meaning is not present. Instead the document suggests that the passengers were delivered to Treblinka, just as they were to Belzec and Sobibor, which is line with my assertion.
As for the AI, I just gave it this whole page, which included our agreement that Malkinia had a transit camp as well as trains stopping there.
This is the full exchange, for transparency sake, and you can replicate it in Claude Sonnet if you wish- my queries in bold
Can you comment on PR's reading of the Ganzenmuller letter?
I'll analyze PrudentRegret's (PR's) interpretation of the Ganzenmuller letter:
PR makes several key arguments about the Ganzenmuller letter:
He argues that the phrase "a train with 5000 Jews goes daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka" doesn't necessarily mean all passengers reached Treblinka. PR suggests some may have disembarked at stops along the way, including Malkinia.
PR notes that Arad (presumably Yitzhak Arad, a Holocaust historian) mentioned that many transport documents listed Malkinia as the final destination for Treblinka-bound transports.
PR questions why the trains would stop at Malkinia if all passengers were destined for Treblinka, suggesting this supports his theory of Malkinia as a transit point.
PR argues that the train schedules (Fahrplanaordnung) don't list "T-II" or Treblinka extermination camp as a destination, which he sees as supporting his interpretation.
There are some issues with PR's reasoning:
While it's true that stating a train's destination doesn't guarantee all passengers arrived there, the letter's wording strongly implies the 5000 Jews were intended to reach Treblinka. PR's interpretation requires assuming unstated stops and disembarkations.
The mention of documents listing Malkinia as a destination is interesting, but without seeing those documents, it's hard to assess their context or meaning. They may have administrative or logistical explanations.
Trains often make stops for various reasons (refueling, crew changes, etc.) without necessarily offloading passengers. The stops alone don't prove PR's theory.
The absence of "T-II" on schedules isn't necessarily meaningful, as clandestine operations often use coded or alternate designations.
Overall, while PR raises some interesting points, his interpretation requires making several assumptions not directly supported by the letter's text. A more straightforward reading of the document seems to align with the conventional historical understanding of Treblinka's role. However, this is a complex historical topic that continues to be debated by scholars. CopyRetryN
Explain the #1 issue in much more depth, getting into grammar theory
EditCertainly, I'll delve deeper into the grammatical analysis of the key phrase from the Ganzenmuller letter:
The phrase in question is: "a train with 5000 Jews goes daily from Warsaw via Malkinia to Treblinka."
Let's break this down from a grammatical perspective:
Sentence Structure:
This is a simple declarative sentence with a subject ("a train with 5000 Jews"), a verb ("goes"), and adverbial modifiers ("daily", "from Warsaw", "via Malkinia", "to Treblinka").
Prepositional Phrases:
"from Warsaw": origin
"via Malkinia": intermediate point
"to Treblinka": destination
These prepositions form a logical sequence of movement: from (starting point) -> via (passing through) -> to (end point).
Verb Tense and Aspect:
"Goes" is in the simple present tense, indicating a regular, habitual action. Combined with "daily," it implies an ongoing, scheduled operation.
Implications of "via":
The preposition "via" typically means "by way of" or "passing through." In travel contexts, it usually doesn't imply stopping or disembarking unless explicitly stated.
Principle of Completeness:
In formal communication, especially in administrative or military contexts, omitting significant details (like partial disembarkation) would be unusual. The principle of completeness in communication would suggest that if partial offloading was a regular feature, it would likely be mentioned.
Gricean Maxims:
Applying philosopher Paul Grice's conversational maxims, particularly the maxim of quantity (provide as much information as required, not more), the absence of information about stops or partial disembarkation suggests these weren't considered relevant or didn't occur.
End-weight principle:
In English, the most important information often comes at the end of a sentence. Here, "to Treblinka" is in the final position, emphasizing it as the primary destination.
Holistic meaning:
The sentence presents a complete journey. Breaking this semantic unit to suggest partial journeys for some passengers would be an unusual interpretation without additional context.
PrudentRegret's interpretation requires reading beyond what's explicitly stated, assuming unstated actions that would typically be included in such a formal communication if they were regular occurrences. While language can sometimes be ambiguous, in administrative contexts like this, precision is usually prioritized.
This grammatical analysis suggests that the most straightforward interpretation is that the train's intended destination for all its passengers was Treblinka, with Malkinia serving as a waypoint rather than a significant stop for disembarkation. However, it's important to note that historical interpretation often requires corroborating evidence beyond single documents or phrases.
It's not necessary for me to bias the AI in my favor, because it's patently clear to me that your arguments here are very weak.
