Article 2 commonly overlooked signs of intelligence

[Syne]

See, you could only copy/paste from the link I gave you. You don't seem capable of even posing questions to AI that support your claims.

I didn't post anything from the link you posted. I quoted it from Wikipedia.

Yes, I posted a link to that wiki before you quoted it. Check for yourself:

Yes, that's what I'd expect a mediocre intellect to say.

The g factor (short for "general intelligence factor") is a foundational concept in psychology and psychometrics that represents an underlying mental capacity influencing performance across a wide variety of cognitive tasks. First proposed by Charles Spearman in 1904, it accounts for the observation that people who score highly on one type of cognitive test (such as verbal reasoning) generally tend to score well on others (like spatial or mathematical tasks).
- Gemini

It's funny how people claim to have answers when they haven't bothered to play devil's advocate with what they think they know.

See that link for g factor? 9_9
Yeah, I put that in there.

Or didn't you read it? 

How do you think I found out the fields of those critics? @_@

And anybody who relies on an LLM search engine to argue for them obviously has no ability to argue their point themselves. You clearly demonstrate the non-existence of anything like a contentless non-specific superpower called "intelligence."

Yet I've done so for years, and only quit when LLMs sped up the process of dealing with intellectually lazy people.
It's really a shame you can't be bothered to do that much, and just resort to personal invective.

[Magical Realist]

Yes, I posted a link to that wiki before you quoted it. Check for yourself:

Like I said, I never posted from your link and didn't even notice it. I went to Google, clicked on the Wikipedia link there, and learned about the G factor there. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Yet I've done so for years, and only quit when LLMs sped up the process of dealing with intellectually lazy people.

So you only quit arguing your own points for yourself because it's easier to quote LLM's. That's the very definition of intellectually lazy. No wonder people quit responding to you.

[Syne]

Yes, I posted a link to that wiki before you quoted it. Check for yourself:

Like I said, I never posted from your link and didn't even notice it. I went to Google, clicked on the Wikipedia link there, and learned about the G factor there. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Oh, you read it but didn't notice the link.
You do know that bold blue text means links, right? @_@

Yet I've done so for years, and only quit when LLMs sped up the process of dealing with intellectually lazy people.

So you only quit arguing your own points for yourself because it's easier to quote LLM's. That's the very definition of intellectually lazy. No wonder people quit responding to you.

No, I still argue my own points all the time. I only use LLMs in lieu of specific links. Both are quoting info from the internet, and if you're capable, both are equally open to rebuttal. I'm not sure why you throw such a fit about one source (genetic fallacy) over another.

Sure, try to project your intellectual laziness on me.... when my effort is a direct result of your repeated intellectual laziness and dishonesty, where you'll just ignore what you can't rebut. Don't like it? Quit cherry-picking my posts (even to the extent of only quoting partial sentences to remove the context).

[Magical Realist]

No, I still argue my own points all the time. I only use LLMs in lieu of specific links.

So you lied when you said this? Or are you lying now?

Yet I've done so for years, and only quit when LLMs sped up the process of dealing with intellectually lazy people.

Both are quoting info from the internet, and if you're capable, both are equally open to rebuttal. I'm not sure why you throw such a fit about one source (genetic fallacy) over another.

A non-conscious search engine that cherry picks random opinions according to your specific search query, or real thought-generated text. You figure it out.

[Syne]

No, I still argue my own points all the time. I only use LLMs in lieu of specific links.

So you lied when you said this? Or are you lying now?

Yet I've done so for years, and only quit when LLMs sped up the process of dealing with intellectually lazy people.

The only part I've quit is looking up, quoting, and linking specific citations, instead of simply citing an LLM. If pressed on any particular point, I can readily find and post specific citations, as Gemini provides those as sources for its answers. But since some people will just ignore facts they can't rebut, why would I waste the time?

For the literate, it's clear that I've never quit arguing my own points. I just support them with LLMs in lieu of individual citations.

Both are quoting info from the internet, and if you're capable, both are equally open to rebuttal. I'm not sure why you throw such a fit about one source (genetic fallacy) over another.

A non-conscious search engine that cherry picks random opinions according to your specific search query, or real thought-generated text. You figure it out.

Yeah, that's a genetic fallacy.... used to justify ignoring what you can't rebut, like the intellectual lazy and dishonest.
You could always question or rebut any point, but instead you'd rather ignore them and use personal invective, genetic fallacies, etc..

[Magical Realist]

The only part I've quit is looking up, quoting, and linking specific citations, instead of simply citing an LLM. If pressed on any particular point, I can readily find and post specific citations, as Gemini provides those as sources for its answers. But since some people will just ignore facts they can't rebut, why would I waste the time?

For the literate, it's clear that I've never quit arguing my own points. I just support them with LLMs in lieu of individual citations.

So you lied. Got it.

Yeah, that's a genetic fallacy.... used to justify ignoring what you can't rebut, like the intellectual lazy and dishonest.
You could always question or rebut any point, but instead you'd rather ignore them and use personal invective, genetic fallacies, etc..

You're the one using LLMs instead of arguing and calling ME intellectually lazy. So you get to cut and paste whatever online search result supports your opinion while I'm actually supposed to put in the effort to rationally rebutt your unargued point? No..sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I'm not casting my pearls to an AI-quoting swine.

[Syne]

The only part I've quit is looking up, quoting, and linking specific citations, instead of simply citing an LLM. If pressed on any particular point, I can readily find and post specific citations, as Gemini provides those as sources for its answers. But since some people will just ignore facts they can't rebut, why would I waste the time?

For the literate, it's clear that I've never quit arguing my own points. I just support them with LLMs in lieu of individual citations.

So you lied. Got it.

No, as usual, you just didn't understand. You always fail to steelman anything said, leading to your repeated misunderstanding... and accusations (projections) of lying.

Yeah, that's a genetic fallacy.... used to justify ignoring what you can't rebut, like the intellectual lazy and dishonest.
You could always question or rebut any point, but instead you'd rather ignore them and use personal invective, genetic fallacies, etc..

You're the one using LLMs instead of arguing and calling ME intellectually lazy.

Again, the literate know that I still make my own arguments, all the time. I only support them with LLMs instead of specific links. If I wasn't arguing, you'd never have anything to disagree with.

So you get to cut and paste whatever online search result supports your opinion while I'm actually supposed to put in the effort to rationally rebutt your unargued point? No..sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

No one ever said you couldn't use LLMs. But yes, I use them so I don't waste time on intellectually lazy people who regularly and repeatedly just ignore large portions of my arguments (and strawman them out of context)... because they can't refute them. This pattern existed long before the advent of LLMs.

Pretending that there is not a long history, predating LLMs, of someone's intellectual laziness is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not casting my pearls to an AI-quoting swine.

Which is exactly why I feed it to you. If you ever become self-aware of your own lazy tactics and evasions, maybe you'll recognize the parallel.