Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Kragen Javier Sitaker Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:31:47 -0300 Organization: Primarily biological and memetic Lines: 50 Message-ID: <87v78bbpws.fsf@debian> References: <11706u3$3obgi$1@dont-email.me> <87h5kb540e.fsf@debian> <117m4g9$360e9$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 18:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="3310527"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZrcUC48+3fJ4NC7WSx2SF"; posting-host="5e8b773666f2baa1b3e9fe7abeba1530" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3//B7yHxvM+lXxf4OeqNBj3fT4c= sha1:SLg9WtmZoTXV6MLxCczU6y8QhPA= sha256:RgOCN6SZzcymrgH1NqlASNV5WCfufpweJIQ6OIjZE3o= sha1:fWOFKBYVB/9EZHZ/TyBa6TbJDR8= sha256:vzuDSL9i8fYDS2HouS9VUJXdWYTUCN0zfVRKrJI64xg= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:135672 Hans Bezemer writes: > On 31-08-2026 15:17, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote: >> The usual norm of etiquette is [...] > > [...] First of all, his argument has nothing to do with “morals” or > “ethics” [...] That’s true — etiquette is rarely a product of moral philosophy, having more to do with group social dynamics than with metaphysics. > Sorry -- but as a participant of a debate, it is YOUR responsibility to: > (a) Note that arguments of an AI may be the product of hallucination; > (b) Be sufficiently prepared to: > (I) Investigate the claim (if possible); > (II) Counter the claim by using your already gathered information > and knowledge. > > This guy is simply claiming HE IS TOO LAZY TO DO ALL THAT! > > If that is the case, you DESERVE to lose your good name and feel > violated. [...] It’s unclear to me whether you’re shouting about me, Terry, or Alex Martsinovich? The claim of Martsinovich that you’re alluding to is that people who post AI slop will suffer reputational damage due to their “laziness”, because the people who read it feel violated. You seem to be conflating those two roles. But, yes, generally speaking, people *are* too lazy to investigate and counter all the AI claims they receive, just as they are too lazy to investigate and counter all the claims that appear in their spam. There are just too many such claims for that to be practical. Debates where all participants are expected to spend their scarce human reasoning power rebutting AI-generated claims will simply vaporize the moment an AI slop volcano is directed at them. And it seems like there are a *lot* of people who agree with Martsinovich’s point of view; in the poll reported in , 78% “stop reading immediately” when they realize they’re reading AI slop, and 71% “try to avoid the author in the future”. In case you’re referring to me, at the risk of descending into ego defense, I did in fact counter six false claims in the original message, using my already-gathered information and knowledge, exactly as you are recommending. So, if that’s what you meant, I think you’ve got the wrong guy. But I don’t plan to do that in every case, because it’s impossible. Kragen