13-06-2024, 11:53 PM
Dear Joben,
I will not respond to your comment, which has a part that may have a political aspect.
I read your comments about ChatGPT. I partially agree with these. But let me give a clear example here without further ado. I have been talking about some structural and phonetic features of Turkish here for months (in fact, the first time was more than a year ago). I wrote these features here by showing evidence, academic articles, and examples. Later, I also showed that 1/1 of the same structural and phonetic structure exists in VM texts. I presented this at an international symposium, where the scientific committee consisted almost entirely of Old Turkish expert professors, and it was published as an article.
For months, I have been asking researchers and linguists here how these structural overlaps should be evaluated from a scientific perspective and what these findings and overlaps actually mean. None of the answers from people to this question were answered with scientific understanding. I do not prefer to communicate with the dialogue jargon in the bar or on the street. The question I am asking is a very linguistics-oriented question and is based on very clear and concrete findings. People's unscientific and vague answers or asking new questions that have nothing to do with the questions I asked are forms of communication that I do not prefer. I have stated this many times.
I asked ChatGP the same question. I asked GPT to read my VM-related articles and summarize them. Then I asked the machine to look at the sources for the evidence I presented in my articles too. In this sense, I only asked the GPT to examine academic articles and academic criticisms of academic articles. Then I asked him to list all the other articles that said VM-texts are natural languages and read them. Then, I ordered the GPT to find itself the related pieces of evidence presented in those articles to read all of them too. Then, I asked GPT to compare all the articles claiming that VM-texts are natural languages, in terms of the rationality of the evidence, consistency, and whether the overlaps are concrete or not. Then, I asked GPT to express its judgment with answering the question "The VM-texts are more likely to be which language?"
I also wrote the GPT answers to all these here & share. Many people are reading the posts I make on these pages. They are at liberty not to answer my question about what the two structural and phonetic overlaps I have presented mean. People may have different reasons for not answering. I don't know the reasons. For example, they may say; "I cannot answer your question because I do not know Turkish or I am not a linguist." There may be reasons for not answering, or trying to answer a question with a question or trying to divert the discussion from its axis by writing nonsense and irrelevant things to the main question and topic.
So, This is what the GPT machine does not do. When you ask the machine a question, it answers in a particular frame. The machine that answers my simple question does not depend on any of the elements you have listed here as "the current weaknesses of ChatGPT". No excuses or weaknesses play a role in his answers to a simple question. My questions are simple reading and comparing content questions for ChatGPT. There is no detail in my questions that would confuse the ChatGPT.
In fact, while there are many scientists and academicians reading these pages; If the situation of not being able to say "what it actually means to understand that two clear structural and phonetic matches are compatible with a single language" continues, I can say that I will close my membership account on this page and leave soon. People with an academic identity should be able to open and read the evidence presented and express their opinions within the scientific framework, even if they do not know Turkish. I don't think it would make any sense for me to be in an environment where this cannot be done. Because I can say that continuing like this is quite annoying, apart from being a waste of time on my part. I indicated two structural overlaps and asked some simple questions. I will wait for the answers for a while and then can conclude that not be interesting to be in a group where researchers cannot interpret this simple data. At that moment, I could leave this group myself without waiting for the admin, and I think I am very close to this point.
I will not respond to your comment, which has a part that may have a political aspect.
I read your comments about ChatGPT. I partially agree with these. But let me give a clear example here without further ado. I have been talking about some structural and phonetic features of Turkish here for months (in fact, the first time was more than a year ago). I wrote these features here by showing evidence, academic articles, and examples. Later, I also showed that 1/1 of the same structural and phonetic structure exists in VM texts. I presented this at an international symposium, where the scientific committee consisted almost entirely of Old Turkish expert professors, and it was published as an article.
For months, I have been asking researchers and linguists here how these structural overlaps should be evaluated from a scientific perspective and what these findings and overlaps actually mean. None of the answers from people to this question were answered with scientific understanding. I do not prefer to communicate with the dialogue jargon in the bar or on the street. The question I am asking is a very linguistics-oriented question and is based on very clear and concrete findings. People's unscientific and vague answers or asking new questions that have nothing to do with the questions I asked are forms of communication that I do not prefer. I have stated this many times.
I asked ChatGP the same question. I asked GPT to read my VM-related articles and summarize them. Then I asked the machine to look at the sources for the evidence I presented in my articles too. In this sense, I only asked the GPT to examine academic articles and academic criticisms of academic articles. Then I asked him to list all the other articles that said VM-texts are natural languages and read them. Then, I ordered the GPT to find itself the related pieces of evidence presented in those articles to read all of them too. Then, I asked GPT to compare all the articles claiming that VM-texts are natural languages, in terms of the rationality of the evidence, consistency, and whether the overlaps are concrete or not. Then, I asked GPT to express its judgment with answering the question "The VM-texts are more likely to be which language?"
I also wrote the GPT answers to all these here & share. Many people are reading the posts I make on these pages. They are at liberty not to answer my question about what the two structural and phonetic overlaps I have presented mean. People may have different reasons for not answering. I don't know the reasons. For example, they may say; "I cannot answer your question because I do not know Turkish or I am not a linguist." There may be reasons for not answering, or trying to answer a question with a question or trying to divert the discussion from its axis by writing nonsense and irrelevant things to the main question and topic.
So, This is what the GPT machine does not do. When you ask the machine a question, it answers in a particular frame. The machine that answers my simple question does not depend on any of the elements you have listed here as "the current weaknesses of ChatGPT". No excuses or weaknesses play a role in his answers to a simple question. My questions are simple reading and comparing content questions for ChatGPT. There is no detail in my questions that would confuse the ChatGPT.
In fact, while there are many scientists and academicians reading these pages; If the situation of not being able to say "what it actually means to understand that two clear structural and phonetic matches are compatible with a single language" continues, I can say that I will close my membership account on this page and leave soon. People with an academic identity should be able to open and read the evidence presented and express their opinions within the scientific framework, even if they do not know Turkish. I don't think it would make any sense for me to be in an environment where this cannot be done. Because I can say that continuing like this is quite annoying, apart from being a waste of time on my part. I indicated two structural overlaps and asked some simple questions. I will wait for the answers for a while and then can conclude that not be interesting to be in a group where researchers cannot interpret this simple data. At that moment, I could leave this group myself without waiting for the admin, and I think I am very close to this point.