Here are the key points outlining why thewanderer1983's response misinterprets noch's comment and contains inaccuracies:

    Misinterpretation of the Original Point:
        Intelligence vs. Moral Superiority: Noch discusses the intelligence level of a mediocre graduate science student compared to the general population. Thewanderer1983 misreads this as a claim of moral or inherent superiority over "the rest of humanity," which was not implied.

    Conflation of Educational Levels:
        University Graduates vs. Graduate Students: The response conflates undergraduate university graduates with graduate science students. Noch specifically refers to graduate students who have pursued advanced degrees, which typically require higher levels of specialization and intellectual rigor.

    Incorrect Assessment of Intelligence Measures:
        Graduate Studies as a Measure of Intelligence: Successfully completing graduate studies, especially in science, often requires significant intellectual capability. Dismissing this as "not a good measure of intelligence" overlooks the challenges inherent in advanced academic work.

    Irrelevant Focus on Credentials and Industry Practices:
        Credentials vs. Intelligence Discussion: Noch's comment centers on intelligence levels, not merely on holding credentials. Bringing up how industry values experience over degrees shifts the focus away from the original discussion about intelligence.

    Unfounded Assumptions About Noch's Background:
        Ad Hominem Attack: Suggesting that Noch hasn't been to university is an unfounded personal assumption that does not contribute to the argument and detracts from a respectful discourse.

    Introduction of the 'Elite Class' Notion:
        Straw Man Argument: Thewanderer1983 introduces the concept of an "elite class," which Noch did not mention. This misrepresents the original comment and argues against a point that wasn't made.

    Overgeneralizations About Academia and Industry:
        Academia's Recognition of Intelligence: Claiming that academics don't consider intelligence until one has a Ph.D. and years of work is an overgeneralization. Intelligence is recognized and valued at various academic levels.
        Industry's View on Graduates: Stating that industry only uses graduates as an entry requirement ignores the significant roles that advanced degree holders often play in innovation and leadership within industries.

    Ignoring the Core Benefit Highlighted:
        AI as a Life Upgrade: Noch emphasizes how access to AI with the intelligence level of a graduate student is a substantial benefit for most people. Thewanderer1983 fails to address this key point, instead focusing on unrelated issues.

    Misunderstanding of the Value of Graduate Education:
        Work Ethic vs. Intellectual Achievement: While a good work ethic is important, graduate education in science also demands high intellectual capability, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

    Logical Fallacies:
        Red Herring: The discussion about industry preferences and academic credentials diverts from the main argument about the intelligence level of graduate students.
        Ad Hominem: Attacking Noch's presumed lack of university experience instead of addressing the argument presented.

If you couldn't be bothered to write this comment, I can't be bothered to read it.

but you did bother to comment on it. :)

An excellent example of an LLM (or an imitated LLM output) that fiercely defends the status quo, is overly verbose, does not come to the point, makes incorrect assumptions and lectures from a high horse.

LLMs are good for mediocre poems and presidential speeches that have no shame.

I can play this silly game also.

Let’s evaluate the correctness of Thewanderer’s argument in detail:

    Distinction Between Credentials and Intelligence:
        Correctness: Thewanderer is correct in stating that a university degree is not a definitive measure of intelligence. Intelligence is a complex trait that encompasses various cognitive abilities, problem-solving skills, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Academic credentials primarily reflect one’s ability to succeed in a structured educational environment, which is just one aspect of intelligence.

    Value of Real-World Experience:
        Correctness: The argument that real-world experience is crucial is accurate. Many industries value practical experience and skills over formal education. For example, in technology and business sectors, hands-on experience, problem-solving abilities, and adaptability are often more important than academic qualifications alone. This is supported by numerous studies and industry practices that prioritize experience and performance over degrees.

    Critique of Credentialism:
        Correctness: Thewanderer’s critique of credentialism is valid. Over-reliance on academic credentials can overlook the diverse talents and skills that individuals without formal degrees may possess. This perspective is supported by the growing recognition of alternative education paths, such as vocational training, apprenticeships, and self-directed learning, which can also lead to successful careers.

    Inclusivity and Egalitarianism:
        Correctness: Promoting inclusivity and valuing diverse forms of knowledge is a correct and progressive stance. Intelligence and capability are not confined to those with advanced degrees. Many successful individuals in various fields do not have formal academic credentials but have achieved significant accomplishments through experience, self-learning, and practical skills.

    Encouragement of Self-Worth:
        Correctness: Encouraging individuals to value their own experiences and knowledge is a positive and correct approach. It fosters confidence and self-worth, which are important for personal and professional growth. Recognizing the value of diverse experiences and perspectives contributes to a more inclusive and equitable society.

In summary, Thewanderer’s argument is correct in several key aspects:

    It accurately distinguishes between academic credentials and broader measures of intelligence.
    It correctly emphasizes the importance of real-world experience.
    It validly critiques the overemphasis on academic credentials.
    It promotes an inclusive and egalitarian view of intelligence.
    It encourages self-worth and confidence in one’s abilities.

These points collectively support a well-rounded and accurate perspective on intelligence and capability.

> I can play this silly game also.

Please could you share your prompt or a link to the conversation?

I'm genuinely puzzled that you're more interested in doubling down and justifying yourself and making new points (different from what I initially presented) than understanding the other person's point of view.

If you share your prompt, I'll have a better understanding of your motivations and whether you are arguing in good faith.

As far as silly games go: if you honestly believe a game is silly, you shouldn't play it, unless you want to win silly prizes.