Serpent AncestorSnake Immortal

新白蛇问仙

Just give it the conversation and say what it thinks about both partys, you get the last part.(As in last quote)(If you think all of it, was made with bias, towards me)
I get what you’re saying about ChatGPT’s tendency toward user satisfaction and that it can be biased by the way questions are phrased. But that’s actually why I specified that the analysis came from GPT—it’s not about proving who’s 'right' or 'wrong' in the argument, but about demonstrating that even a neutral tool can pick up on the inconsistencies and contradictions in your responses(even if 75% is wrong there still is a problem). The fact that it noticed these issues in your argument shows they’re not just my personal opinion, but patterns a third party can see as well(doesnt matter if half of them worse through bias).

And yes, I’m aware of the technical limitations of AI language models, including bias and hallucination, which is why I didn’t use it to confirm my arguments as absolute truths but rather as a summarization tool. Given that I’m aiming to work in AI, understanding both its strengths and weaknesses is critical. Using it here wasn’t about creating an echo chamber; it was about bringing in an unbiased summary to refocus on the main inconsistencies without the personal attacks.
If you think using the AI would support your side better, feel free to try it—it might help identify strong, consistent points in your arguments if they’re there, as it did with the contradictions I highlighted.

I included the AI's analysis not as an 'objective truth' but as a way to show that even an external tool could detect inconsistencies in the arguments you presented. If you look at my original comment, you’ll see I didn’t claim the AI could determine who’s right about the novel itself; I know that’s not possible(atleast not yet realisticaly speaking/even if only smaller parts). Instead, it was to show how your arguments seemed contradictory and/or unclear.

The AI helped make these contradictions more visible, especially since you’ve either ignored or avoided addressing them directly. If you’d like to explain them in more depth(as in what you meant, not making a strawman in someform, even if accidently) or show where they aren’t actually contradictions, that might make the discussion more productive.
Instead of addressing the points directly, you seem more focused on criticizing the use of AI as a tool—as if pointing out the AI’s supposed 'bias' somehow invalidates everything it highlighted. You haven’t tackled the actual arguments I presented. Ironically, you’re lecturing on AI use to someone who might have a much deeper understanding of it. Simply saying I 'abused bias' without actually addressing the contradictions feels like a way to sidestep the main discussion entirely, but hey prove me wrong.

Just curious—was there ever a moment in this conversation when you considered speaking in a more neutral tone?(I dont have that feeling. Sure, you don’t have to agree with me, but there's no need to make this conversation more ridiculous by talking like that, constantly.)

How AI Language Models Actually Work

Pattern Over Understanding
When an AI like ChatGPT gets trained, it’s not “learning” the way humans do. It’s processing massive amounts of text, recognizing patterns, and then replicating them. It doesn’t understand meaning or intent—it's just playing a high-stakes guessing game. It picks the words that statistically fit based on prior examples. Sure, it works out better than you'd think in a lot of cases, but it’s not doing anything more than guessing based on the patterns it’s seen.

Weights and Biases
You talked about bias, and yeah, that’s real—but it’s not as important as you're making it out to be. During training, developers set weights to help guide how the AI processes language. These weights make it favor some patterns more than others, giving it a “bias.” When you prompt it, you can influence that bias, but it’s still working off the foundation set by the initial weights. This is why AI tends to give “neutral” or “consensus” responses—it’s designed that way. But honestly, that’s not the important part in this context, and I’ve said this already.

Probability Rules
Every response it generates is a probability calculation—basically asking, “What word statistically follows this one?” There’s no set logic or “right answer,” just a guess based on what it's been trained to recognize. That’s why it can feel random or inconsistent sometimes. Two different answers might be just as probable as each other, and it picks the one that fits the pattern best.


The Limits of AI

No Real Understanding
AI doesn’t actually “know” anything. It’s just a pattern machine, spitting out responses based on what it’s seen. So yeah, it can give decent answers, but it doesn’t understand what it’s saying. But this isn’t about asking AI to evaluate who's right in the argument; it’s about using it as a tool to highlight contradictions in your points.

Only Knows What It’s Fed
The only “knowledge” the AI has comes from the data it was trained on. If that data was flawed or skewed, it’ll reflect that. It doesn’t self-correct or “learn” beyond the model it’s been trained on. The sheer volume of data it processes is huge, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. And if the data's flawed, that’ll show up in the output.

Randomness and Hallucinations
Sometimes, AI “hallucinates” stuff—meaning it spits out information that’s off-base or just flat-out wrong. This happens because it’s not fact-checking anything; it’s just predicting what comes next in the sequence based on patterns. Sometimes, those patterns are totally wrong, but in most cases, they align with reality to some extent. It’s like a result of trial and error.

Struggles Without Clear Facts
In structured fields like math, AI is great because there are clear rules to follow. But in more subjective areas—like analyzing a story—it’s working without a clear framework. It can spot patterns in the text, but it doesn’t have the "common sense" or deeper understanding that a human does. But again, this doesn’t matter in this case, because I wasn’t using it to evaluate the novel. I used it to point out contradictions in your arguments.

AI’s Actual Strengths

Good at Summarizing
AI excels at summarizing long discussions or texts. It can spot repeated phrases or ideas, so it’s useful for identifying main themes or contradictions without trying to “interpret” them. I’ve said this before, but you seem to ignore it every time.

Pattern Recognition
It’s good at recognizing patterns and linking similar ideas, which is useful for organizing and comparing information, even if it doesn’t “understand” it. It’s great for putting things in context and highlighting inconsistencies.

Language Generation
It can generate text and mimic conversations pretty well. This makes it useful for tasks like translation or grammar checking, where pattern-matching is key.

Basic Context Analysis
AI can do simple context analysis, like spotting when two statements contradict one another. It picks up on linguistic cues and flags them, even though it doesn’t “understand” the deeper meaning. That’s exactly what I used it for here—to flag contradictions in your points.

(Naturally, I could go much deeper and list countless areas where AI can be helpful and probably a few where it won’t be much use to you, like subjective evaluation beyond very basic ideas. But honestly, I think this is already enough to make the point clear. As for the algorithm(if you for some reason want to know about it), here’s a very short version: AI models are trained using gradient descent. The model makes predictions, and a loss function compares them to actual values. Backpropagation calculates gradients of the loss concerning the parameters, and gradient descent updates the parameters to minimize the loss. This process repeats iteratively, with optimizations like SGD or Adam making it more efficient.

Should I explain it that way, or start with basic number theory from college to prove I have some understanding of the field? (Not that I think I know nearly enough to dive deep into it, but again, that’s pretty pointless.)

So how is this relevant? Well, not really—just like your whole rant(oh no i called it rant) on AI. But it’s obvious that its role here is exactly what I used it for. I wasn’t using AI to evaluate the novel; I was using it to point out contradictions in your critique.

I used AI for what it’s actually good at—summarizing and pointing out contradictions. It’s not some infallible judge (do I need to repeat that again?), but it’s a useful tool for organizing and clarifying ideas. It doesn’t make decisions or “choose sides.” It just spots patterns. And in this case, it highlighted several contradictions in your points. If you want to argue against that(as in the 'wrong' points/contradictions it made/saw), go ahead, but I’m sure you’ll just deflect.(Most likely)
But hey, you can just ignore this if you want. Honestly, I don’t feel like there’s any real discussion happening here anyway. Or dont.

Here is the grammatically improved version of your text:

I also insult all the time (like I had to restrain myself in that first comment lol, still got through a bit, I feel like). Same as all other comments, sometimes you gotta try using other things than normal, like that. I totally get why you are doing it. To be honest, it's fun, and seeing the last part, being constantly passive-aggressive (and maybe trolling a bit, who knows where) worked XD. It's actually a lot meaner than true insults, even if neither is good for an actual discussion. But holy f, it's hard to write like that. You see that comment that asked something like "What is going on?" I had to keep it in to not say just a retard arguing with me over literally nothing (and most other comments I had to go over with GPT to fish that out, it's so normal that I don't even realize it lol, can give you the original if you want to see what they were like). Like sure, I don't think the way you presented that rev was logical/good(as in logical/good to make an opinion on the novel, i dont think it does what you wanted it to). Like seriously, using "brainrot" anywhere to seriously describe something is quite unique (like I hear/see the word only in actually retarded media like lobotomy-type memes, brainrot GF, or similar), but it's nowhere near worth it to argue with someone because of that. If I truly just wanted to correct you... like I don't think I've ever argued on the site to truly only 'correct' someone. Trolling etc. is at least half the motivation. (For discussion involving disagreements that is)

Also, I normally don't give a f about my writing quality. Like if you want to (instead of doing it yourself), just give it to GPT, say: "Improve but don't change the info" = fixed version without effort. You sometimes have to change a bit, but it's really helpful for that, which funnily enough is what I use it most for.

Hope I didn’t annoy you too much, but hey, we can continue even though I probably should've just sent you this in DM if I cared about continuing this (espically by now)pointless 'argument'.
I personaly am quite bad at flamming others/i just insult them/say the truth most of the time, when i get annoyed/want to annoy i use these disgusting passive aggressive tacs, like imo they are way worse, since they appear alot more reasonable from an outsiders perspective, but are just as bad if not worse, since you can hardly counter argue them, trolling is quite interresting, since i think its of the same vein as " the best lie is 90% truth 10% false" you have to make you standpoint reasonable/the arguments till there, but along the way or the end change up something so its believable, like the other interactions here, i also for example wouldve probably used the likes as an argument(even if it isnt one/its a completly useless metric espically considering the factors involved and numbers(as in 1-10 likes isnt telling you anything even outside of the other factors) just to annoy you.
Dunno if you also wanted to troll, but i do think insults are the less effective way to make it seem believable, like i fell like(might be wrong), you yourself, didnt think anyone would take it completly serious(what you wrote/if they arent dumb) being passive aggressive messes with people more, since most dont have a way to defend themself against that and also dont realise the trolling(atleast i dont think people do when i do it), but hey if you have Suggestions for improvement(improvement of trolling/being an ahole is something else, dont think ive ever done that xd) than tell me them.

6. **"Acting rational":** You argue that rationality demands in-depth worldbuilding, yet admit the MC makes cautious choices to survive. Rational decisions don’t require an elaborate world; they depend on the character’s understanding of their situation. Even in a simplified environment, caution can be a logical survival strategy, not just a means to stall progression.

Basically the less information an individual (or via extension the reader) has on the internal logic of the world (fixed rules, incentives and constraints) the less of a basis any claim of rational action has.

2. **"Snake aspect":** You wanted a protagonist with animalistic instincts (e.g., eating humans, mating), yet criticize signs of human-like behavior or intelligence. In xianxia, a character’s evolution often includes developing complex thought; they blend instinct with acquired behaviors as their awareness grows. Expecting purely animalistic behavior misses the genre’s conventions, where intelligence increases over time.

Its boring by now and Its starting to look silly now.
Like seriously i dunno if i should play the offended one, but its boring if you argue with non points against me, try atleast if you continue Also yes just to f(probably only very little)with you i run it through Gpt, since it changes the way it looks(writting)