Will you please accept this pity bite?

If you keep asking, will the LLM keep trying to get it right, until it does?

Why not allow everything and let users do their own filtering?

Hasn't it been mathematically proven that all hallucinations come from AI?

As someone who is throttled to ten posts in any 24-hour period, may I expend 10% of my daily allotted quota on this comment praising your dedication and trolling stamina, even as I still see your target as the bigger, badder troll?

Have you ever changed the AI's mind by arguing with it? If the AI is wrong why not give it the sane bs filter you use?

Why is my car mpg calculator not even close to 95% accurate compared to dividing indicated mileage by actual gallons pumped?

"A human is also actually capable of identifying and correcting mistakes, unlike an LLM."

Why can you teach an LLM to produce simple ASCII text that will render cleanly on slashdot, by posting its mistaken attempts back to it until it learns?

Are you hallucinating away my actual experience?

"businesses run the numbers, determined how much it would cost, and deducted that low demand at such price point would not result in sufficient sales to justify going ahead. That is, it is either too expensive and/or insufficient demand."

Why ignore subsidies? If Trump decided to subsidize recycling over mining, could he single-handedly change market preferences?

Have you considered owning your projections? How many cases where LLM answers are good do you leave out?

Is the Justice Department 100% accurate? When the highest levels of government fail your accuracy tests, is it cherry-picking to seize on AI mistakes?

Can you use your words to align it to hallucinate only what you hallucinate?

If the super poor have an inflation-indexed income sufficient to access enough material goods for a decent life, does your argument collapse?

"While inequality is a cause of that globally, there are plenty of parts of the first world that include the meaninglessly rich alongside the adequately resourced."

Why isn't universal basic income the obvious solution?

"Noting that it is good to hear that individual happiness and well being are not correlated to how much money you have"

Isn't this just the Easterlin paradox? Why do we pursue GDP when it doesn't even make us happier?