Activity
#5619·Jad Elmourad, about 4 hours agoWhen a participant uses AI to help with that, but the funders don’t know about it, it creates an unfair advantage. That’s a violation of not just the letter but also the spirit of the rules.
I don't see what creates an "unfair advantage". Maybe the next lines clarify.
It’d be like secretly using a chess computer for help in a chess competition.
I don't think this analogy is appropriate at all. In a chess competition, people are competing between themselves to prove who is better at chess. My understanding of this platform and the bounty is that it's to incentivize the growth of knowledge, not to prove who is better at writing ideas without AI.
The amount of text Jad has submitted also creates an uphill battle for the remaining funders to review his submissions before the deadline.
This reads to me as suggesting that the text I submitted was somehow excessive or perhaps even intentionally overwhelming, when instead my intention with all my writing was to communicate my ideas as clearly as possible. In fact, on the contrary, I felt that I had to excessively elaborate on some ideas that were clear to me just so that I could better get the idea across.
Veritula discussion trees can’t accurately reflect problematic vs unproblematic ideas when unreasonable people are involved, see #5624. Submitting this as a fix. Jad agrees to terms, breaks them, then wants to argue the purpose and meaning of them. That’s arbitrary, ie the opposite of reason and Veritula. He will no doubt claim he was just trying to follow the Veritula method of addressing criticisms, but the effect is that he’s turning Veritula on its head in the process. There’s no point discussing with people like him.