> my 9-year-old son was taunting my wife… “mommy, I heard you got cooked! I heard that a robot solved the math problem you worked on for your whole career! OOF!”

Usually 9 year olds imitate adults when they regurgitate such words in these circumstances. What a sad state of affairs.

▲

phoghed 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, their parents are going around saying oof, the kids definitely didn’t get it from Roblox, or YouTube, or their peers.

▲

geraneum 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah yes advanced mathematics, a common topic of conversation among children on, checks notes… roblox!

▲

phoghed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If you think that’s what the parent comment was implying, ok then, good for you.

The checks notes meta was retired ages ago btw.

▲

geraneum an hour ago | parent [-]

Deflecting to internet slang and tone policing. Hallmarks of a strong argument.

	▲	phoghed 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You completely missed the point of the original comment. It was very clear so I don’t know how to explain it in a way that you’ll get it. Maybe try your LLM of choice.

▲

m3kw9 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

really? you think they don't have friends/bros/tv/etc to imitate?

▲

random3 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

geraneum 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you have any specific one in mind or did you feel one must fit and wasn’t sure which one?

▲

random3 2 hours ago | parent [-]

non sequitur, faulty generalization, inductive fallacy come to mind, but I think it's useful studying how to not be an walking fallacy, in general

▲

geraneum an hour ago | parent [-]

You already linked the page, no need to start listing the content. Jokes aside, I’d be happy to discuss if you could muster anything specific that fits. Maybe ask an LLM for help?

	▲	random3 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		you took a quote of a snarky comment, assumed it a correct reproduction, and then suggested it's the result of imitating adults along with a (sad) state of affairs caused by adults (parents in this context), further implying that snarky comments are the general rule in the house. now concretely: Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence (non sequitur). You made a generalization (inductive inference) based on a single datapoint (here's where my pointed faulty generalization or inductive fallacy are the come in) for the general problem. I suggest Popper if you want a deeper treatment of the problem of induction (The logic of scientific discovery is a good start). Besides generalizing for free, you cooked up evidence that didn't exist - mainly that the child was imitating adults (again, non sequitur). As a side note, I think it's in poor taste to make remarks about someone's children in what's a technical and informal context. That may have not been the intention but, it's what it looked like.