Raw LLM Responses

Its barely science- anyone with a basic reading knows that while we have insights into the function of the brain and the creation of artificial intelligence, the fields are still as far apart as physics and chemistry in the 18th century- we simply don't have the data to fill in the gaps yet. Anything else is just speculation. Our use of evolutionary modeling is just that - modeling the iterative systems. We don't hear people talking this shit about using evolutionary modeling to show how rivers wear down canyons. People like to port high-minded concepts like selection pressure without study of why we apply them or why we need to rigorously test areas where our brains over-apply pattern recognition. Its barely philosophy too- it fails to give foundations to its discussion, launching into incredibly complex and contested subjects immediately and relying on the inherent 'fuzziness' created to disguise transitions between ideas rather than provide actual backing to them. Its fairly trivial to say, 'we are using this modelling (evolutionary modeling) on these concepts, aren't they similar' and 'these concepts all exist in the same context so they are related, right?' without actually adding anything to the discussion. There is no system here to test its hypothesis, no structure to stress-test its ideas, and its grounding is mostly referencing others work and expecting people to infer the rest. I'll call it how I see it- empty restatement of existing concepts for their emotional component rather than anything novel or worthwhile. It barely achieves its goal in placing these concepts due to its lack of grounding.