The author has been a CPPCon presenter, worked at Bloomberg, and has a GitHub history going back at least to 2022 where they were contributing to LLVM. This isn’t coming from their website but from the actual websites.
Based on their history and experience that’s public on their profiles from an era pre ChatGPT, I think you are overreacting and making a fool of yourself.
It’s pretty scary how we live in an era where semi competent writing gets assumed to be AI and you refuse to fact check yourself before shitting on them as being not real.
Refuting the genetic fallacy with appeal to authority is equally fallacious.
And there are plenty of inept and unintelligent people in the C++ scene anyway. Ironically, someone active (or used to be) in committees even thought ChatGPT surpassed human intelligence years ago, and started to “contribute” on that basis (and more ironically, that wasn’t the semi-scandal that caught him out).
The genetic fallacy is fallacious on its own. Always. There is no further proof needed to point to it being contextually applicable. And in your case, that attempted proof was unhelpful and in itself fallacious.
I’m not appealing to authority. I’m pointing out that they’re not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn’t claim it’s entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it’s worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.
It’s crazy to me that you think I’m even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I’m appealing to is the evidence that they exist.
The author has been a CPPCon presenter, worked at Bloomberg, and has a GitHub history going back at least to 2022 where they were contributing to LLVM. This isn’t coming from their website but from the actual websites.
Based on their history and experience that’s public on their profiles from an era pre ChatGPT, I think you are overreacting and making a fool of yourself.
It’s pretty scary how we live in an era where semi competent writing gets assumed to be AI and you refuse to fact check yourself before shitting on them as being not real.
Refuting the genetic fallacy with appeal to authority is equally fallacious.
And there are plenty of inept and unintelligent people in the C++ scene anyway. Ironically, someone active (or used to be) in committees even thought ChatGPT surpassed human intelligence years ago, and started to “contribute” on that basis (and more ironically, that wasn’t the semi-scandal that caught him out).
The genetic fallacy is fallacious on its own. Always. There is no further proof needed to point to it being contextually applicable. And in your case, that attempted proof was unhelpful and in itself fallacious.
I’m not appealing to authority. I’m pointing out that they’re not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn’t claim it’s entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it’s worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.
It’s crazy to me that you think I’m even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I’m appealing to is the evidence that they exist.