> That’s your opinion, but I was clear about the origin of the information which is accessible to anyone, it’s up to others to vet and validate information they find online, and furthermore, what you think is poor form is strictly your personal opinion and has little to do with the implied social etiquette of this forum, and nothing to do with its actual rules.
Evidently not.
> codezero 1 day ago
> [flagged]
Do you always get this upset, argumentative, and perceive personal attack when people disagree with you?
I've been very civil, being flagged doesn't mean I broke the rules, flags are crowdsourced and it's more likely related to your axe grinding and the four downvotes which I'm fine with. If you are implying I broke the rules, please cite the rule I broke.
The comment I responded to literally said:
> My only hypothesis is that the attacker may have thought that it should look plausible as a test
The entire premise of this thread is speculation, which I did. Furthermore, the GPT response prompted me to come up with my own speculation (I won't call it a hypothesis, as this is not science):
I never said anything about a personal attack. You didn't disagree with me (There wasn't anything to agree to, I was speculating), you went on a tirade about how much you dislike people using ChatGPT. I don't have a problem with you, or your opinions about ChatGPT, in fact, I respect them.
You also haven't considered one thing: Posting trash responses by various LLMs on public forms will help weaken future LLMs by poisoning their inputs. If you hate LLMs so much, you should consider doing your part to poison their inputs so they become irrelevant, case in point, this thread is the third result for "uname used in malware" on Kagi, and first on Google. Stop being a passive participant and fight LLMs at the front if you care so much.
Evidently not.
> codezero 1 day ago
> [flagged]
Do you always get this upset, argumentative, and perceive personal attack when people disagree with you?