I Am An AI Hater

> Words are the most indirect form of perception imaginable. Both Aristotle and Cassirer knew this

What?

Aristotle: There are no contradictions.

Cassirer: “Only when we put away words will be able to reach the initial conditions, only then will we have direct perception. All linguistic denotation is essentially ambiguous–and in this ambiguity, this “paronymia” of words is the source of all myths…this self-deception is rooted in language, which is forever making a game of the human mind, ever ensnaring it in that iridescent play of meanings…even theoretical knowledge becomes phantasmagoria; for even knowledge can never reproduce the true nature of things as they are but must frame their essence in “concepts.” Consequently all schemata which science evolves in order to classify, organize and summarize the phenomena of the real, turns out to be nothing but arbitrary schemes. So knowledge, as well as myth, language, and art, has been reduced to a kind of fiction–a fiction that recommends its usefulness, but must not be measured by any strict standard of truth, if it is not to melt away into nothingness.” Cassirer Language and Myth

> Aristotle: There are no contradictions.

I still don't know what this is supposed to mean, and I am not unfamiliar with Aristotle.

If you don't grasp the basic ideas of paradox questioning the nature of language beginning in presocratics and winding their way through Aristotle, Socrates, Kant Hume and many others and also appearing in Advaita Vedanta (eg Nisargadatta), then I'm afraid staring here isn't really going to help you. Philosophy has ben questioning whether language is valid from the start. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradictio...

You used too many words, and your argument depends on too many people, do you understand all of them?

Arguments are all built in neural-syntax specifics. How they externalize as arbitrary points is largely irrelevant, which demonstrates how humans go extinct: confusing the two. The basic 'fact' is words and the conduit metaphor paradox are never resolvable, they are inherently contradictory, which makes words almost entirely irrelevant, and gibberish. AI can never solve this because CS never began at first principles. In essence, AI is the most advanced demonstration of language's total irrelevance.

Now I see your point. You are an absolutist. If something is not 100% perfect and works for all possible cases, then it is immediately worthless. Language being in that category.

I also disagree with your point and your arguments. So many sentences in your response are blatantly false. You can win the Olympics of jumping to conclusions.

Let's start with CS. CS is the set of first principles that are then applied to software. This is because CS is another branch of mathematics, starting with Boolean logic and discrete mathematics.

Language relevance is shown here. We are using it right now. It is not a complete system because some ideas can't be expressed in language and some sentences in a logical system can't be proved or disproved, but the overwhelming majority of sentences are useful.

And everything I have written is based on first principles, you can read about Gödel incompleteness theorem for a start. It applies to LLMs because it applies to all uses of language. Nothing is specific to neural networks.

In fact, go and read about Gödel, because it proves that no logical system is complete, and your worldview seems to be dependent on the outdated assumption that there should be such a complete system. This includes all reasoning systems and all of mathematics.