Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #135489 > unrolled thread

Only Forth For Livecheck, No C

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Only Forth For Livecheck, No C Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> - 2026-08-30 03:09 +0000
    writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-08-31 09:17 -0400
      Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> - 2026-08-31 21:39 +0000
        Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-11 14:30 -0300
          Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> - 2026-09-12 09:36 +0000
      Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 07:59 -0400
        Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) marcel hendrix <mhx@iae.nl> - 2026-09-01 13:34 -0400
          Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 17:08 +1000
          Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-02 11:52 -0400
            Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-09-02 20:09 +0200
        Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-01 13:34 -0400
      Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 12:43 +0200
        Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-11 15:31 -0300
          Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C) Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2026-09-15 19:58 +0200

#135489 — Only Forth For Livecheck, No C

Why does a tool that checks your code against a real microcontroller as
you type — over a debug wire, live, in the editor — only work with
Forth, and not C? This episode answers that question, and the answer is
not what you'd expect. It's not a language snobbery. It's physics.

The story begins in 1984, with a technician programming a bottle-filling
machine in raw machine code — hexadecimal digits typed by hand on an
Intel 8085 with a hex keypad. Painful. Then an assembler for the 6800,
and life became smooth as silk. Then PIC microcontrollers and a simple
C-like language that sold some simple products. Then the project that
broke him: an automatic truck lubrication system, very profitable if it
worked — and it didn't. The hardware was sound; the software let him
down. If he'd had Forth, which he hadn't discovered yet, it would have
been a different story.

That story is the key to everything. Forth runs on the chip as a
resident interpreter — you type a line, the silicon answers in
milliseconds. C is cross-compiled and flashed — the feedback loop is
tens of seconds. And that difference is the whole ballgame, because of
*context*.

A slow feedback loop kills context. It kills the human developer's train
of thought, and it kills an AI's context window the same way — make a
change, flash, wait thirty seconds, and the AI has forgotten what it was
doing. It's like driving a Mars rover from Earth: you see the crater on
the video feed, you send "stop," but by the time the signal crosses the
distance and the video comes back, the rover is already in bits at the
bottom of the crater. The command isn't wrong — it's late. AI works fine
with regular C on a desktop, where the loop is fast. But embedded C's
compile-flash-reset cycle is the context killer — for the human and the
AI alike, driving every rover from Earth, and the craters keep winning.

That's why LiveCheck only exists for Forth. It's designed to work with
AI, and AI needs a fast feedback loop to hold a thread of thought about
the silicon. Only an interactive on-chip language can give it one. This
episode explains exactly why you'll never see a LiveCheck for C — and
why that's not a limitation, but the point.

Produced with the help of AI without which this video would not have
been possible

(Context: I'm Terry, a 72-year-old electronics technician — fifty years
of soldering, circuits and oscilloscopes, Forth since the 90s. I dictate
my notes and an AI helps me write them up clearly, but the actual bench
work — the registers, the LEDs, the clocks, the measurements — is mine,
done live.)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#135495 — writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> writes:
> (Context: I'm Terry, a 72-year-old electronics technician — fifty years
> of soldering, circuits and oscilloscopes, Forth since the 90s. I dictate
> my notes and an AI helps me write them up clearly, but the actual bench
> work — the registers, the LEDs, the clocks, the measurements — is mine,
> done live.)

While it’s true that the text above this remark (some of which I’ve
quoted below) is pretty clear, it’s also pretty obviously AI, and it has
a certain characteristic that is widespread in AI-generated texts which
is pretty offputting: it frequently exaggerates to the point of
falsehood in a sort of slick salesman way, which inspires distrust in
the sort of people who think about things.

Specifically:

> Why does a tool that checks your code against a real microcontroller as
> you type — over a debug wire, live, in the editor — only work with
> Forth, and not C? This episode answers that question, and the answer is
> not what you'd expect. It's not a language snobbery. It's physics.

The answer isn't physics.

> Then the project that broke him: an automatic truck lubrication
> system, very profitable if it worked — and it didn't. The hardware was
> sound; the software let him down.

The truck lubrication system didn’t break you.  You're still
functioning.

> C is cross-compiled and flashed — the feedback loop is tens of
> seconds. And that difference is the whole ballgame, because of
> *context*.

There’s more to embedded development than fast feedback loops; although
they’re important, they’re not the whole ballgame.

> A slow feedback loop kills context. It kills the human developer's
> train of thought, and it kills an AI's context window the same way —
> make a change, flash, wait thirty seconds, and the AI has forgotten
> what it was doing.

AIs’ context windows do not evaporate in 30 seconds; typical on-GPU
cache lifetimes are measured in minutes, not seconds, and even when the
context window has been evicted from the cache, it’s not lost. The AI
company just bills you for extra tokens.

> This episode explains exactly why you'll never see a LiveCheck for C —

You might someday see a LiveCheck for C.  C interpreters exist.  It
probably won’t be called LiveCheck, but it’s obviously possible to
provide the same functionality for C.  It’s just very hard.

> and why that's not a limitation, but the point.

LiveCheck not working with C is, in fact, a limitation, almost by
definition.

*****

The usual norm of etiquette is that it’s rude to show AI output to
people.
(<https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/>)
I think the usual reasons for this norm of etiquette do not in fact
apply to your use of AI; you put a lot more effort into this than just a
quick prompt and sharing the resulting essay.  Here are the usual
reasons, from the above URL:

> There’s nothing wrong with _using AI_. When you do, you know what
> you’re getting. The transaction is fully consensual. But whenever you
> _propagate AI output_, you’re at risk of intentionally or
> unintentionally legitimizing it with your good name, providing it with
> a fake proof-of-thought. In some cases, it’s fine, because you did
> think it through and adopted the AI output as your own. But in other
> cases, it is not, and our scrambler brain feels violated.

I think I have an insight about how to use LLM AIs for this kind of
thing that can only be shared by, unfortunately, publicly exhibiting
some of their output, and it's an insight that may be of use to you,
because it will keep people from mistaking your hard-won experience for
random AI slop.

If you want, you can get LLM AIs to not sound like this.  You may have
to hammer on them a bit when they fall back into their default slick
salesman persona and introduce obvious falsehoods like the ones I listed
above.  But generally they’re pretty good at imitating the voice of any
persona they have a good corpus of training text for.

Here’s an example where I asked GPT-5.4 Mini in Reasoning mode to
rewrite your text in the voice of George Carlin, a request it partly
refused.  It seems dramatically less exaggerated:

> Why does a tool that checks your code against a real microcontroller
> while you type only work with Forth and not C? Because the whole issue
> isn’t taste, and it isn’t ideology. It’s timing.
> 
> Back in 1984, the work started the hard way: raw machine code, hex
> digits punched in by hand on an Intel 8085. That was a fine way to
> punish a technician and a terrible way to build anything. Then came an
> assembler for the 6800, and suddenly there was at least some
> relief. Later came PIC microcontrollers and a simple C-like language
> that got a few products out the door. Then came the project that went
> sideways: an automatic truck lubrication system. The hardware was
> fine. The software blew it. If Forth had already been in his toolkit,
> things might have gone differently.
> 
> That’s the whole trick. Forth lives on the chip as a resident
> interpreter. You type, it responds almost immediately. C doesn’t do
> that. C gets cross-compiled, flashed, reset, and dragged through a
> long little bureaucratic ritual before you find out whether you were
> right. That delay is where the trouble starts.
> 
> Because slow feedback is poison. It breaks the developer’s
> concentration, and it does the same thing to AI: the thread gets
> stretched, then frayed, then lost. You change something, flash it, wait,
> and by the time the result comes back, the model has half-forgotten why
> it cared in the first place. It’s not that the command was wrong. It’s
> that it arrived after the party was over.
> 
> So yes, LiveCheck only works with Forth. Not because C is inferior, and
> not because someone has a language preference, but because the tool
> needs a tight loop, and Forth gives it one. C in embedded systems gives
> you a slow, stupid little parade of compile, flash, reset, wait,
> repeat. Forth gives you a conversation. And if you want a tool that
> thinks alongside the silicon, you need the conversation.

My prompt (aside from your text) was the following:

> Please remove all the exaggerated claims from the following text, then
> rewrite it in the voice of George Carlin, removing all the negative
> parallelism and glib oversimplifications.  It's okay if it has new
> exaggerated claims and negative parallelisms as long as they're the
> ones that George Carlin would have put in there.

I asked Claude Haiku to rewrite it in the style of G. K. Chesterton, and
the result certainly doesn't sound like stereotypical AI, but I'm not
sure it's an improvement in terms of accuracy the way the Carlin version
was:

> The Forth Paradox, or Why the Machine Must Talk Back
> 
> There exists a curious tool that whispers to a microcontroller through a
> debug wire while you work, receiving answers in milliseconds—and it
> exists only for Forth. Why should this be? The answer, I confess,
> surprised me as much as it surprises everyone else. It is neither a
> matter of fashion nor of linguistic prejudice. It is, in fact, a matter
> of physics; or perhaps I should say, a matter of how the human mind
> conducts its peculiar commerce with silicon.
> 
> The story, like all good stories, begins with a man at work. In 1984, a
> technician sat before an Intel 8085, typing hexadecimal digits by hand
> upon a keypad—a tedious business, certainly, though not without its own
> grim dignity. Then came an assembler for the 6800, which restored to him
> some measure of grace. Simple languages followed, and simple
> products. But then arrived the task that tested him: an automatic truck
> lubrication system, which promised great profit but delivered only
> failure. The hardware was honest. The software, alas, was not. Had he
> known Forth—had he discovered that remarkable language—the tale might
> have concluded otherwise.
> 
> And herein lies the matter entire.
> 
> Forth runs upon the chip as an interpreter; you speak a line, and the
> silicon answers you at once. C must be compiled and flashed to memory—a
> process consuming thirty seconds or more. Between these two facts stands
> the great gulf: the human mind requires continuity of thought. A long
> delay does not merely interrupt; it severs. One forgets not only where
> one was, but why one was there. An artificially intelligent mind, it
> seems, suffers the same affliction. The debugging becomes like operating
> a rover across the Martian distance—you observe a crater, you transmit
> your correction, but by the time the signal returns, the machine has
> already tumbled into the abyss. The command is not wrong. It is merely
> too late.
> 
> This is why LiveCheck dwells only in Forth. It is built, not for speed
> as such, but for continuity—that most precious commodity in the work of
> thought itself.

I used the same prompt except for changing the author name.  Then I did
the same thing with Gemma 31B and Richard Feynman:

> Now, here is a funny thing. You have this tool that lets you check
> your code against a real microcontroller as you're typing—right there
> in the editor, live over a debug wire. But you notice it only works
> for Forth and not for C. You might think that's just some programmers
> being picky about their favorite language, but it's actually a matter
> of how the information moves.
> 
> Imagine a fellow back in 1984 trying to program a bottle-filling
> machine. He's typing hexadecimal digits by hand into an Intel
> 8085. It's a tedious process. Then he moves to an assembler for the
> 6800, which makes things a bit easier. Then come the PIC
> microcontrollers and a simple C-like language. But eventually, he hits
> a wall with something like an automatic truck lubrication system. The
> hardware is fine, but the software is a mess, and he can't figure out
> why. If he had used Forth, he would have seen the problem immediately.
> 
> The secret is in how the language actually sits on the chip. Forth uses
> a resident interpreter. You type a line, and the silicon responds in a
> few milliseconds. Now, C is different. You have to cross-compile the
> code and flash it onto the chip. That feedback loop takes tens of
> seconds.
> 
> This delay is a big deal because of what I call the "context" of the
> problem. When the feedback is slow, you lose your train of thought. It's
> the same for an AI. If you make a change and then have to wait thirty
> seconds for a flash and reset, the AI has essentially lost the thread of
> what it was trying to achieve. It's a bit like trying to drive a rover
> on Mars from Earth. You see a crater on your screen, you send the
> command to stop, but by the time the signal travels across space and
> back, the rover has already driven straight into the hole. The command
> was correct, but it arrived too late to matter.
> 
> That's the reason LiveCheck is built for Forth. If you want an AI to
> hold a coherent thought about what's happening inside the silicon, you
> need a fast feedback loop, and only an interactive on-chip language can
> provide that. It's not a limitation of the tool; it’s just how the
> machinery of the process works.

I think this is also significantly more accurate than the original.

These are all one-shot translations with no back-and-forth.  It probably
wouldn’t be difficult to coach the AI to sound less AI and be still more
meticulous about veracity.

I invite commentary on whether these are better or worse than the
original.

Another way to use AI to clarify your writing, a way which doesn’t
expose you to charges of posting AI slop at all, is to give your writing
to an AI and ask it questions about the subject you’re talking about.
Note, privately, what it got wrong in the process.  The things AI
misunderstands are also likely to be things that people misunderstand.
Revise your writing, without using AI, to clarify the confusing parts:
remove things that misled it if you can, reorder parts to provide better
context when it becomes apparent that context was lacking, or add more
material if those don’t work.  I can’t demonstrate that in this case,
but if you try it, I think you’ll see that it works.

Kragen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135497 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 2026-08-31, Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> wrote:
> Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> writes:
>> (Context: I'm Terry, a 72-year-old electronics technician>
<snip>
> While it’s true that the text above this remark (some of which I’ve
> quoted below) is pretty clear, it’s also pretty obviously AI,

<snipped for clarity>

Quoting the obvious is a waste of text and our time, I always provide a "made
 with the assistance of AI" disclaimer for all to see.

I'm not interested in hearing another anti AI diatribe, I've heard them all
 countless times already.

>
> The usual norm of etiquette is that it’s rude to show AI output to
> people.
> (<https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/>)

<snip>

Those are your rules not mine. I alone decide what I write.

Summary: I'm only interested in the results that I can obtain from the use
of AI, such as Regmon and Livecheck. Both are awesome diagnostic tools for
embedded Forth that I have wanted for decades.

You are welcome to pontificate all you like about your anti AI opinions,
 just not to me.


>
> Kragen
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135669 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> writes:
> You are welcome to pontificate all you like about your anti AI
> opinions, just not to me.

It’s interesting to see people trying to figure out whether people are
“pro AI” or “anti AI”.  I don't see how any thinking person could be
either one?

Kragen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135682 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 2026-09-11, Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> wrote:
> Terry Porter <techman001@eternal-september.org> writes:
>> You are welcome to pontificate all you like about your anti AI
>> opinions, just not to me.
>
> It’s interesting to see people trying to figure out whether people are
> “pro AI” or “anti AI”.  I don't see how any thinking person could be
> either one?
>
> Kragen


Doesn't the very act of thinking guarantee that people will have an opinion ?


Opinion — a view, judgment, or belief held about something, based on personal
perspective, feeling, or reasoning rather than on proven fact or expert
authority. It's a held position that could reasonably be disputed or held
differently by someone else with the same information.

Cheers,
Terry


--
Creator and maintainer of "The Unauthorised Mecrisp-Stellaris UserDoc (2014)"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135503 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 31/08/2026 11:17 pm, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> ... 
> While it’s true that the text above this remark (some of which I’ve
> quoted below) is pretty clear, it’s also pretty obviously AI, and it has
> a certain characteristic that is widespread in AI-generated texts which
> is pretty offputting: it frequently exaggerates to the point of
> falsehood in a sort of slick salesman way, which inspires distrust in
> the sort of people who think about things.

Don't know whether you're talking to a human or a machine?  It's the
ultimate isolation - communicating through AI's.  I don't think humans
appreciate there won't be any need for what little thinking they
currently do.  Doomed to endless entertainment.  At 70 it hardly matters
but not for young person.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135507 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 9/1/2026 1:59 PM, dxf wrote:
[..]
> Don't know whether you're talking to a human or a machine?  It's the
> ultimate isolation - communicating through AI's.  I don't think humans
> appreciate there won't be any need for what little thinking they
> currently do.  Doomed to endless entertainment.  At 70 it hardly matters
> but not for young person.

What takes no (human/user) effort is worthless (in the sense that nobody 
will pay for it). AI as a commercial product will fail / is failing 
unless somebody finds a way around that.

-marcel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135523 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 2/09/2026 3:34 am, marcel hendrix wrote:
> On 9/1/2026 1:59 PM, dxf wrote:
> [..]
>> Don't know whether you're talking to a human or a machine?  It's the
>> ultimate isolation - communicating through AI's.  I don't think humans
>> appreciate there won't be any need for what little thinking they
>> currently do.  Doomed to endless entertainment.  At 70 it hardly matters
>> but not for young person.
> 
> What takes no (human/user) effort is worthless (in the sense that nobody will pay for it). AI as a commercial product will fail / is failing unless somebody finds a way around that.

Automation has paid for itself (either that or we've come to the realization that
we can't go back).  AI infrastructure investment is running at about $1 trillion
and only projected to increase.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135529 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

In comp.lang.forth marcel hendrix <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:
> On 9/1/2026 1:59 PM, dxf wrote:
> [..]
>> Don't know whether you're talking to a human or a machine?  It's the
>> ultimate isolation - communicating through AI's.  I don't think humans
>> appreciate there won't be any need for what little thinking they
>> currently do.  Doomed to endless entertainment.  At 70 it hardly matters
>> but not for young person.
> 
> What takes no (human/user) effort is worthless (in the sense that nobody 
> will pay for it). AI as a commercial product will fail / is failing 
> unless somebody finds a way around that.

At least in short term this "problem" is solved: datacenters need
a lot of human effort for construction, material and equipement.
And a lot of electric power which needs human effort to generate.

And even if it were cheap, this alone does not imply failure.  In
1970 IBM was worried that decreasing cost of electronic circuits will
collapse their business.  Decreasing cost indeed disrupted IBM
business, but with decreasing cost there was explosion of usage,
so computing markert now is worth more than in 1970.

Capitalism has a problem, it is essentially based on scarcity of
goods and labour as a way around scarcity.  "AI" may eliminate
human labour from most of our economy, making people "worthless".

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135533 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

In article <117934h$1h38j$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Waldek Hebisch <antispam@fricas.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
>Capitalism has a problem, it is essentially based on scarcity of
>goods and labour as a way around scarcity.  "AI" may eliminate
>human labour from most of our economy, making people "worthless".

The historic mission of capitalism is to increase productivity.
With robots we are arriving at infinite productivity.
That is the end of scarcity, if we distribute the wealth properly.

>                              Waldek Hebisch

>
-- 
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135508 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
> Don't know whether you're talking to a human or a machine?  It's the
> ultimate isolation - communicating through AI's.  I don't think humans
> appreciate there won't be any need for what little thinking they
> currently do.  Doomed to endless entertainment.  At 70 it hardly matters
> but not for young person.

I believe Terry to be a human, if that's what you mean.

I think that probably I, at least, will still enjoy thinking, even if I
could survive for a time without it.

Kragen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135590 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 31-08-2026 15:17, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> The usual norm of etiquette is that it’s rude to show AI output to
> people.
> (<https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/>)
> I think the usual reasons for this norm of etiquette do not in fact
> apply to your use of AI; you put a lot more effort into this than just a
> quick prompt and sharing the resulting essay.  Here are the usual
> reasons, from the above URL:

Since when is it fashionable to take the unfounded, incoherent opinion 
of a random person on the internet as "truth"?

Let's examine the central argument:

"But whenever you propagate AI output, you're at risk of intentionally 
or unintentionally legitimizing it with your good name, providing it 
with a fake proof-of-thought. In some cases, it's fine, because you did 
think it through and adopted the AI output as your own. But in other 
cases, it is not, and our scrambler brain feels violated."

First of all, his argument has nothing to do with "morals" or "ethics" 
-- it's merely about reputation damage: "intentionally or 
unintentionally legitimizing it with your good name". Ethics stay out of it.

Second, it isn't even against all debating rules -- as the author 
suggests with "providing it with a fake proof-of-thought".

However, judging by the book "Excellent Sheep", in which William 
Deresiewicz suggests that today’s elite educational institutions often 
place greater value on students learning to present positions 
persuasively than on true intellectual exploration.

The author also backpedales on his own viewpoint by explicitly stating: 
"In some cases, it's fine, because you did think it through and adopted 
the AI output as your own."

The true idea behind is stance is given in the last sentence: "But in 
other cases, it is not, and our scrambler brain feels violated."

Yeah. You're too stupid to form and found your own opinion, so you lend 
it from an effing machine..

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.

Okay. Now don't do the lazy thing and simply google a random page using 
AI that supports your particular viewpoint and present it as "proof", 
just because it is legible, but do the effing work -- and properly found 
your opinion using actual arguments.

"Grahams Triangle of Disagreement" is a good start.

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135672 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> 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
<https://writethatblog.substack.com/p/dev-reaction-to-ai-blog-posts>,
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135714 — Re: writing style with AI (was Re: Only Forth For Livecheck, No C)

On 11-09-2026 20:31, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 31-08-2026 15:17, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> That’s true — etiquette is rarely a product of moral philosophy, having
> more to do with group social dynamics than with metaphysics.

Wow! That's a lot of eloquent words for such a humble person. You know, 
often such words are used to mask peoples own ignorance on the matter. 
And I suspect that's the case here.

Now tell me -- what has manners to do with the fundamental structure of 
reality. And if you wanna go into group dynamics, these are arbitrary by 
very nature. Or at least closely related to contract ethics -- if you 
insist on membership of a group.

So-- exactly what is the purpose of this statement? It's just a load of 
tautologies!

> 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.

True -- but who cares? People who spread untruths are facing the same 
dangers. People who claim zodiac signs show 'whodunnit', ditto. There 
are countless ways to have your reputation damaged. In far more evident 
ways than  Martsinovich claims. And let me note, *none* of this is based 
on any reliable data. Pure 'cargo cult science'.

> There are just too many such claims for that to be practical. 

Figures my dear, figures. When I pose a comment on an average YT, you 
can be assured I've read enough for the next two comments to come. And 
if I can do it, everybody else can. Unless you're lazy and ignorant of 
course. And ignorance is *never* an excuse.. Not in the days of the 
Internet.

> 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.

"Slippery slope" logical fallacy. Try again.

> And it seems like there are a *lot* of people who agree with
> Martsinovich’s point of view.

"Bandwagon" logical fallacy. You're not getting much better.

> 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.

You want a medal for doing your homework? As you're supposed to do? 
Given the number of logical fallacies in this piece alone, I'm not so 
sure you're the wrong guy.

Your major error was to list a mere opinion piece as your sole argument. 
I don't care what people think, I only care about what they can actually 
prove.

And some nitwit trying to force his opinion onto the world, without 
*any* supporting data is *not* "proof" by any measure in my book. Maybe 
the saddest thing is that certain people take him serious. So much for 
critical thinking.

Gee, what is the world coming to..!

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web