As far as I can tell, I did not talk down to you as to a child, and I
certainly did not call you intellectually lazy or stupid. I criticised the
fact that you don't want to put in the hard work to understand the subject you
are discussing, which is what you have stated from the start of the
conversation, claiming you don't need to read up on the history of AI because
it is not relevant (I'm paraphrasing your point but correct me if I
misunderstood it).
It seems to me I am right to think that you took my criticism as an insult to
your faculties. If I say something wrong, I expect to be corrected and
criticised if I insist on it, but I don't take that as an insult.
>> To the other side of things, it might help calm you to know I never much
considered what I was saying a criticism of Louise.
And still you persist with the same style of commenting. "Calm" me? And you
complain that I talk down to you? You have replied to my original comment with
arrogance to tell me that my entire field of study is "not AI" and irrelevant
- and then continued to insist you don't need to know anything about the ~70
years of work you dismiss even when it became clear that this only causes you
to make elementary errors. You speak of things you know nothing about with
great conviction and then you get upset with me for pointing out this can only
result in errors and confusion. Given all that, I have shown great patience
and courtesy. Others would have just ignored you as ignorant and unwilling to
learn. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Was that a mistake?
A poor choice of words, sorry. I meant, I understood you to be saying you found the criticism of Louise unpleasant, and I thought it would lessen that to know that I didn't and don't think Louise was bad.
It seems to me I am right to think that you took my criticism as an insult to your faculties. If I say something wrong, I expect to be corrected and criticised if I insist on it, but I don't take that as an insult.
>> To the other side of things, it might help calm you to know I never much considered what I was saying a criticism of Louise.
And still you persist with the same style of commenting. "Calm" me? And you complain that I talk down to you? You have replied to my original comment with arrogance to tell me that my entire field of study is "not AI" and irrelevant - and then continued to insist you don't need to know anything about the ~70 years of work you dismiss even when it became clear that this only causes you to make elementary errors. You speak of things you know nothing about with great conviction and then you get upset with me for pointing out this can only result in errors and confusion. Given all that, I have shown great patience and courtesy. Others would have just ignored you as ignorant and unwilling to learn. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Was that a mistake?