He’s right. you’re not saying anything that actually furthers the conversation or counters any of his points.
I was never trying to counter any of his points. I think we just disagree on what makes for good conversation.
Readit NewsSimianwords said: "use GPT 5 with thinking and search disabled and get it to give you inaccurate facts for non niche, non deep topics" and noted that mistakes were possible, but rare.
JustExAWS replied with an example of getting Python code wrong and suggested it was a counter example. Simianwords correctly noted that their comment originally said thinking mode for factual answers on non-niche topics and posted a link that got the python answer right with thinking enabled.
That's when you entered, suggesting that Simian was "missing" the point that GPT (not distinguishing thinking or regular mode), was "not always right". But they had already acknowledged multiple times that it was not always right. They said the accuracy was "high enough", noted that LLMs get coding wrong, and reiterating that their challenge was specifically about thinking mode.
You, again without acknowledging the criteria they had noted previously, insisted this was cherry picking, missing the point that they were actually being consistent from the beginning, inviting anyone to give an example showing otherwise. At no point between then and here have you demonstrated an awareness of this criteria despite your protestations to the contrary.
Instead of paying attention to any of the details you're insulting me and retreating into irritated resentment.
Thank you for repeating yourself again. It's really hammering home the point. Please, continue.
Taiwan as a country doesn't want that. There is a reason they only fab their latest and greatest chips domestically in Taiwan. It is of Taiwan's national interest and of TSMCs interest to do everything they can to ensure that the US protects them from China.
Again, it is a net positive for the US to have TSMC manufacture chips on US soil, so I am not arguing against that point, I simply posit it is not enough from a US national security / technology leadership standpoint.
I think we agree and we've just been talking past each other. Cheers.
I never said it did. Having a fab on US soil is important for the short term, but you need cutting edge fabs on US soil in the future too and that doesn't happen unless you are doing a lot of research.
Okay, so Taiwan is blockaded or invaded by China. The USA has a 3nm TSMC fab that they can assume control over, and, yes, they have the labor of that fab, great, but what about 2 nm? 1 nm? Etc? Without TSMCs R&D does the US have a cutting edge fab in 10 years? 20 years? Beyond? There is literally no other company in the United States that could even hope to expand their capabilities to be considered on the cutting edge within the next 15 years.
The easiest way to get TSMC's R&D in the US is to have them build a fab here and have employees here. If China invades Taiwan, and TSMC has employees that want to flee to somewhere else, the US would be the most logical option. If they already have a fab here, an established workforce and infrastructure here, that's better than having to start from nothing.
What about the next fab? And the fab after that? Yes, for the short term the USA has a cutting edge fab on US soil, but what about 10 years after that? The US would lack the ability to build future cutting edge fabs.
Having TSMC build a fab on US soil doesn't prevent any parallel efforts. If anything having the workforce here would make it easier to build future fabs.
My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed.
You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.
As I've said many times before, I am aware of everything you have said. I just don't care. You seem to be really upset that someone on the internet disagrees with you. And from my perspective, you are the one that has no self-awareness and is completely missing the point. You don't even understand the conversation we're having and yet you're constantly condescending.
I'm sure if you keep repeating yourself though I'll change my mind.
Again, that is nice in the short term, but not for long term development if the worst happens between China and Taiwan.
We'd still have the fab on US soil even if they went to war. I don't think China would invade the US over it.
The difference is I can name specific things that you are in fact demonstrably ignoring, and already did name them. You're saying you just have a different opinion, in an attempt to mirror the form of my criticism, but you can't articulate a comparable distinction and you're not engaging with the distinction I'm putting forward.
So your goal here is to say the same thing over and over again and hope I eventually give the affirmation you so desperately need? You've already declared that you're right multiple times. Nobody cares but you.
You might want to develop a sense of humor. You'll enjoy life more.
2 decades of increasingly refined 24/7 propaganda designed to radicalize.
I don't think it's been refined so much as it's been amplified.
Instead you've tried everything from saying I need to "get a sense of humor", to character attacks, to insisting without specific explanation that I "don't understand", to declaring that you "don't care", to declaring that no amount of information will make you acknowledge the inaccuracy of your own comments.
So you haven't succeeded in changing the subject of the conversation, except in the sense of turning it into a tutorial about why you can't make wrong into right with character attacks or declarations about how much you don't care.