@JBK said:
This sycophantic AI nonsense was annoying at first but is now just disturbing. It doesn't clarify anything, it just damages credibility.
It's not a translation. It's mindless validation.
I don't "need" to post it and can try to avoid it if people don't start telling me I make no sense. I don't need anybody to agree with me but it's very annoying when people respond to a long detailed complete argument by replying that the words are "word salad".
@JBK said:
This sycophantic AI nonsense was annoying at first but is now just disturbing. It doesn't clarify anything, it just damages credibility.
It's not a translation. It's mindless validation.
I don't "need" to post it and can try to avoid it if people don't start telling me I make no sense. I don't need anybody to agree with me but it's very annoying when people respond to a long detailed complete argument by replying that the words are "word salad".
So, you think a second word salad clarifies the first word salad?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I've found that anytime I don't understands what someone has written an AI can translate it into the type of words I use. So when I say there are no rolls of 1969 quarters except a few mint set rolls I mean it literally that very few were saved and attrition is so high that any that were are now gone. But, of course, I don't mean that no rolls can exist. Just because I haven't see a roll since 1970 doesn't prove that none can exist today and I'm aware from half a century of looking that approximately 300 such rolls were sold from classified ads in the coin papers. I can't really know all these rolls sucked but experience with the date tells me they likely did suck.
Let's use NI to translate this:
"When I say there are NO ROLLS (emphasis added)...I mean it LITERALLY...that any that were are now GONE" So, you say, no rolls means LITERALLY that they are gone.
"But, of course, I don't mean that no rolls can exist." So, in other words, you did NOT mean it LITERALLY. You meant it HYPERBOLICALLY.
Without double posting an AI translation, you COULD have just said: "For 1969 quarters, few were saved and attrition is so high that it is unlikely that many rolls still exist."
See how clear and short that is? It doesn't require 1000 words from Copilot to reiterate the internal inconsistency and explain the hyperbole.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I've found that anytime I don't understands what someone has written an AI can translate it into the type of words I use. So when I say there are no rolls of 1969 quarters except a few mint set rolls I mean it literally that very few were saved and attrition is so high that any that were are now gone. But, of course, I don't mean that no rolls can exist. Just because I haven't see a roll since 1970 doesn't prove that none can exist today and I'm aware from half a century of looking that approximately 300 such rolls were sold from classified ads in the coin papers. I can't really know all these rolls sucked but experience with the date tells me they likely did suck.
Let's use NI to translate this:
"When I say there are NO ROLLS (emphasis added)...I mean it LITERALLY...that any that were are now GONE" So, you say, no rolls means LITERALLY that they are gone.
"But, of course, I don't mean that no rolls can exist." So, in other words, you did NOT mean it LITERALLY. You meant it HYPERBOLICALLY.
Without double posting an AI translation, you COULD have just said: "For 1969 quarters, few were saved and attrition is so high that it is unlikely that many rolls still exist."
See how clear and short that is? It doesn't require 1000 words from Copilot to reiterate the internal inconsistency and explain the hyperbole.
[sigh]
I don't have all the answers. Frankly it's quite possible I don't have any of the answers but I believe I know how to seek the questions. One thing is obvious and that is that people are not communicating.
What my phraseology is attempting to do is to communicate the number of coins made, set aside, and having suffered attrition or degradation since release. Lots and lots of '38-D half dollars were set aside in 1938 and attrition has not been high but as percentage of mintage virtually no 1969 quarters were and attrition has been staggering. But saying this people think of the '38-D half dollar as a beautiful, scarce date, US silver coin and the '69 quarter as a token coin made in the billions and so common that it is available in quantity and in the two million mint sets that were made. They know that hundreds have received high grades and fools buy and sell them despite the fact that if the price were to magically increase then millions more would flood the graders and swamp any possible demand.
This is a communication problem and we're all guilty of it because we each filter everything through our beliefs and see what we believe. We all parse everything everyone says uniquely to reflect our own definitions, biases, and perspectives. We tend to divide into camps on every issue and then seek out those who think enough like ourselves that we can pretend we understand one another.
Many individuals try to force other peoples arguments into the frame of "known science" as expressed by AI when being used for research or elaboration on theory. But every AI knows there are millions and millions and millions of '69 quarters because THAT'S what's in the literature. AI can't project attrition because that is not in the literature. Even if it were available there is still the problem that any projection is dependent on the assumptions of the researcher not on what exists in the real world.
I've been there in the real world with my eye on the attrition and my finger on the pulse. I'm trying to tell people in a way that could be duplicated how to get to my answers. If anyone had any specific knowledge that would contradict or reinforce any part of it this could lead to a great discourse.
So what do you know? How can you explain the fact that common '50-D nickels are worth more than a dozen much less common 1965 to date nickels? This is what I'm doing; trying to determine how reality has unfolded as it has and thereby predict where it isa going next. I'm trying to stay one step ahead ahead of the bottleneck and within half a step of AI. Of course we'll all fail eventually but right now it's something to do.
If you don't understand something in this post it might be merely because we don't think alike. Put the post in any AI that knows all people make sense and it will do a wonderful job of putting it in YOUR OWN language.
[/sigh]
@JBK said:
This sycophantic AI nonsense was annoying at first but is now just disturbing. It doesn't clarify anything, it just damages credibility.
It's not a translation. It's mindless validation.
I don't "need" to post it and can try to avoid it if people don't start telling me I make no sense. I don't need anybody to agree with me but it's very annoying when people respond to a long detailed complete argument by replying that the words are "word salad".
So, you think a second word salad clarifies the first word salad?
Wow. That barely took four hours in the middle of the night!
Maybe you don't understand the nature of an LLM. These things are parsing language and reflecting the promptor.
Essentially the LLM's have solved abstraction. They've parsed language from to A to Z and from the first word to the last. They did this despite the fact no word can be defined or virtually because no word can be defined. No true or false statement can be made in symbolic abstract language so their responses are an approximation of the prompt if it were possible to make a true statement within the frame of that prompt.
As an experiment I asked a cold Grok how many rolls of nice chBU 1969 quarters existed and was surprised to see it answer correctly and it even gave several references. Unfortunately most of these referenced could me traced back to me so if I'm wrong Grok is also wrong.
@JBK said:
This sycophantic AI nonsense was annoying at first but is now just disturbing. It doesn't clarify anything, it just damages credibility.
It's not a translation. It's mindless validation.
I don't "need" to post it and can try to avoid it if people don't start telling me I make no sense. I don't need anybody to agree with me but it's very annoying when people respond to a long detailed complete argument by replying that the words are "word salad".
So, you think a second word salad clarifies the first word salad?
Wow. That barely took four hours in the middle of the night!
Maybe you don't understand the nature of an LLM. These things are parsing language and reflecting the promptor.
Essentially the LLM's have solved abstraction. They've parsed language from to A to Z and from the first word to the last. They did this despite the fact no word can be defined or virtually because no word can be defined. No true or false statement can be made in symbolic abstract language so their responses are an approximation of the prompt if it were possible to make a true statement within the frame of that prompt.
As an experiment I asked a cold Grok how many rolls of nice chBU 1969 quarters existed and was surprised to see it answer correctly and it even gave several references. Unfortunately most of these referenced could me traced back to me so if I'm wrong Grok is also wrong.
We all roll the dice and take our chances.
I know exactly what the LLM is doing. But when you feed it word salad, you get an expanded word salad back. None of your Copilot "translations" are clarifying anything to the rest of us.
You seem to think we don't understand you. We understand, we just don't agree...well, except when you make contradictory posts. In that case, we agree with half of they post, like the one I "translated" for you: We don't believe there are "LITERALLY none left", but we do believe there are some left. You conveniently said both in the same paragraph, so you're batting 0.500.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
This was written by Copilot because I know in advance that @jmlanzaf will not understand a single word in the salad above. Indeed Copilot went to somelenghts to tell exactrly wqhy it won't be understood.
I invite all individuals who don't like AI to skip the rest of this post written by Copilot to explain the post above. It is included only for jmlanzaf.
_🧩 5. The clean version you can post back
Here’s a version that keeps your voice but makes the logic impossible to misread:
You’re misunderstanding what an LLM does. It doesn’t validate anything. It mirrors the structure of the promptor’s language. If the premises are coherent, the output is coherent. If the premises are contradictory, the output is contradictory.
When I ask about 1969 quarter rolls, the model answers based on the literature — and most of that literature traces back to me. If I’m wrong, the model is wrong. That’s not validation. That’s how symbolic systems work.
The real issue here is communication. I’m describing a process — mintage, set‑aside rate, attrition, survival curves — and people keep trying to force it into binary categories like “literal” vs “hyperbolic.” That’s why I sometimes use AI: not for agreement, but because it can translate my procedural structure into someone else’s categorical frame._
@jmlanzaf said:
You seem to think we don't understand you. We understand, we just don't agree...we'll, except when you make contradictory posts. In that case, we agree with half of they post, like the one I "translated" for you: We don't believe there are "LITERALLY none left", but we do believe there are some left. You conveniently said both in the same paragraph, so you're batting 0.500.
So how do you explain that a cold Grok now can correctly answer the question "So how many rolls of nice choice BU 1969 quarters are there?"?
@cladking said:
This was written by Copilot because I know in advance that @jmlanzaf will not understand a single word in the salad above. Indeed Copilot went to somelenghts to tell exactrly wqhy it won't be understood.
I invite all individuals who don't like AI to skip the rest of this post written by Copilot to explain the post above. It is included only for jmlanzaf.
_🧩 5. The clean version you can post back
Here’s a version that keeps your voice but makes the logic impossible to misread:
You’re misunderstanding what an LLM does. It doesn’t validate anything. It mirrors the structure of the promptor’s language. If the premises are coherent, the output is coherent. If the premises are contradictory, the output is contradictory.
When I ask about 1969 quarter rolls, the model answers based on the literature — and most of that literature traces back to me. If I’m wrong, the model is wrong. That’s not validation. That’s how symbolic systems work.
The real issue here is communication. I’m describing a process — mintage, set‑aside rate, attrition, survival curves — and people keep trying to force it into binary categories like “literal” vs “hyperbolic.” That’s why I sometimes use AI: not for agreement, but because it can translate my procedural structure into someone else’s categorical frame._
Congratulations, you just used the AI to tell me what I ALREADY TOLD YOU. WHen you make a contradictory pay and Copilot makes the same contradiction using more words, you've clarified nothing.
Focus on my one sentence edit which revived the contradiction and was easily understood.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
You seem to think we don't understand you. We understand, we just don't agree...we'll, except when you make contradictory posts. In that case, we agree with half of they post, like the one I "translated" for you: We don't believe there are "LITERALLY none left", but we do believe there are some left. You conveniently said both in the same paragraph, so you're batting 0.500.
So how do you explain that a cold Grok now can correctly answer the question "So how many rolls of nice choice BU 1969 quarters are there?"?
You seem to have all the answers.
It can't "correctly" answer a question that is ultimately just speculation. It will TRY to answer it. No one knows.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
You seem to think we don't understand you. We understand, we just don't agree...we'll, except when you make contradictory posts. In that case, we agree with half of they post, like the one I "translated" for you: We don't believe there are "LITERALLY none left", but we do believe there are some left. You conveniently said both in the same paragraph, so you're batting 0.500.
So how do you explain that a cold Grok now can correctly answer the question "So how many rolls of nice choice BU 1969 quarters are there?"?
You seem to have all the answers.
Gemini:
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
You seem to think we don't understand you. We understand, we just don't agree...we'll, except when you make contradictory posts. In that case, we agree with half of they post, like the one I "translated" for you: We don't believe there are "LITERALLY none left", but we do believe there are some left. You conveniently said both in the same paragraph, so you're batting 0.500.
So how do you explain that a cold Grok now can correctly answer the question "So how many rolls of nice choice BU 1969 quarters are there?"?
You seem to have all the answers.
It can't "correctly" answer a question that is ultimately just speculation. It will TRY to answer it. No one knows.
Wow! We have utter and total agreement!
I never claimed to know how many original rolls exist. All I know is what I've seen and researched for more than half a century. For many years I've warned people how few of these exist and this will have some effect on getting some saved but most words get lost in abstract ears. I know only a few hundred rolls were sold on the secondary market with almost all of these before 1974 which was when Jarvis returned his to the bank. I know it was virtually unheard of to either set aside rolls of clad in 1969 and that almost every roll actually seen was trash (ie- few rolls contained even a single coin that might be described as nice chBU). I know I've never seen a roll anywhere since 1969 despite walking into many coin shops and stopping at many show booths for many years all over the country.
Everything else is speculation based on the behavior of collectors since 1957 and the Federal Reserve since 1972. I don't know. There may be a dozen people reading these words and laughing from atop a pile of 1969 quarter bags for all I know. How many numismatists does it take to make me liar?
@cladking said:
How can you explain the fact that common '50-D nickels are worth more than a dozen much less common 1965 to date nickels?
Why is anything worth what it currently sells for? Because that's the price point where where buyers are willing to buy and sellers are willing to sell. It's as simple as that.
@cladking said:
I never claimed to know how many original rolls exist.
??? You regularly make claims about what percentage of a particular date/mint/denomination currently exists in "Nice BU" or "Gem BU" or some other grade description.
@cladking said:
I never claimed to know how many original rolls exist. All I know is what I've seen and researched for more than half a century. For many years I've warned people how few of these exist and this will have some effect on getting some saved but most words get lost in abstract ears. I know only a few hundred rolls were sold on the secondary market with almost all of these before 1974 which was when Jarvis returned his to the bank. I know it was virtually unheard of to either set aside rolls of clad in 1969 and that almost every roll actually seen was trash (ie- few rolls contained even a single coin that might be described as nice chBU). I know I've never seen a roll anywhere since 1969 despite walking into many coin shops and stopping at many show booths for many years all over the country.
Lest people miss the point let me add that the '69 is not the scarcest clad or modern in chBU. Even in Gem it is only among the scarcest. But it is the canary in the coal mine because the rate at which they can come to market is exceedingly low. There's simply no overhang of rolls and singles and the few surviving mint set coins need to be stabilized in acetone to even be marketable. You'll need about 125 sets to assemble a single BU roll because of quality and tarnish issues. That's a fairly significant investment now days.
If demand is already exceeding supply as rising prices suggest than how fast can coins be v\brought to market and how long can this supply last?
I'm not asking for people to agree with me. I'm asking what they think is the reality and how they think it might change going forward.
@cladking said:
Lest people miss the point let me add that the '69 is not the scarcest clad or modern in chBU. Even in Gem it is only among the scarcest. But it is the canary in the coal mine because the rate at which they can come to market is exceedingly low.
There are nine available for sale on eBay right now. How many more would there need to be in order for it not to be a scarcity problem for you?
Comments
I don't "need" to post it and can try to avoid it if people don't start telling me I make no sense. I don't need anybody to agree with me but it's very annoying when people respond to a long detailed complete argument by replying that the words are "word salad".
So, you think a second word salad clarifies the first word salad?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Let's use NI to translate this:
"When I say there are NO ROLLS (emphasis added)...I mean it LITERALLY...that any that were are now GONE" So, you say, no rolls means LITERALLY that they are gone.
"But, of course, I don't mean that no rolls can exist." So, in other words, you did NOT mean it LITERALLY. You meant it HYPERBOLICALLY.
Without double posting an AI translation, you COULD have just said: "For 1969 quarters, few were saved and attrition is so high that it is unlikely that many rolls still exist."
See how clear and short that is? It doesn't require 1000 words from Copilot to reiterate the internal inconsistency and explain the hyperbole.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
[sigh]
I don't have all the answers. Frankly it's quite possible I don't have any of the answers but I believe I know how to seek the questions. One thing is obvious and that is that people are not communicating.
What my phraseology is attempting to do is to communicate the number of coins made, set aside, and having suffered attrition or degradation since release. Lots and lots of '38-D half dollars were set aside in 1938 and attrition has not been high but as percentage of mintage virtually no 1969 quarters were and attrition has been staggering. But saying this people think of the '38-D half dollar as a beautiful, scarce date, US silver coin and the '69 quarter as a token coin made in the billions and so common that it is available in quantity and in the two million mint sets that were made. They know that hundreds have received high grades and fools buy and sell them despite the fact that if the price were to magically increase then millions more would flood the graders and swamp any possible demand.
This is a communication problem and we're all guilty of it because we each filter everything through our beliefs and see what we believe. We all parse everything everyone says uniquely to reflect our own definitions, biases, and perspectives. We tend to divide into camps on every issue and then seek out those who think enough like ourselves that we can pretend we understand one another.
Many individuals try to force other peoples arguments into the frame of "known science" as expressed by AI when being used for research or elaboration on theory. But every AI knows there are millions and millions and millions of '69 quarters because THAT'S what's in the literature. AI can't project attrition because that is not in the literature. Even if it were available there is still the problem that any projection is dependent on the assumptions of the researcher not on what exists in the real world.
I've been there in the real world with my eye on the attrition and my finger on the pulse. I'm trying to tell people in a way that could be duplicated how to get to my answers. If anyone had any specific knowledge that would contradict or reinforce any part of it this could lead to a great discourse.
So what do you know? How can you explain the fact that common '50-D nickels are worth more than a dozen much less common 1965 to date nickels? This is what I'm doing; trying to determine how reality has unfolded as it has and thereby predict where it isa going next. I'm trying to stay one step ahead ahead of the bottleneck and within half a step of AI. Of course we'll all fail eventually but right now it's something to do.
If you don't understand something in this post it might be merely because we don't think alike. Put the post in any AI that knows all people make sense and it will do a wonderful job of putting it in YOUR OWN language.
[/sigh]
No.
I'm writing on several subjects and it is translating within each and between them. While less true aboutr the coin posts
Wow. That barely took four hours in the middle of the night!
Maybe you don't understand the nature of an LLM. These things are parsing language and reflecting the promptor.
Essentially the LLM's have solved abstraction. They've parsed language from to A to Z and from the first word to the last. They did this despite the fact no word can be defined or virtually because no word can be defined. No true or false statement can be made in symbolic abstract language so their responses are an approximation of the prompt if it were possible to make a true statement within the frame of that prompt.
As an experiment I asked a cold Grok how many rolls of nice chBU 1969 quarters existed and was surprised to see it answer correctly and it even gave several references. Unfortunately most of these referenced could me traced back to me so if I'm wrong Grok is also wrong.
We all roll the dice and take our chances.
I know exactly what the LLM is doing. But when you feed it word salad, you get an expanded word salad back. None of your Copilot "translations" are clarifying anything to the rest of us.
You seem to think we don't understand you. We understand, we just don't agree...well, except when you make contradictory posts. In that case, we agree with half of they post, like the one I "translated" for you: We don't believe there are "LITERALLY none left", but we do believe there are some left. You conveniently said both in the same paragraph, so you're batting 0.500.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
This was written by Copilot because I know in advance that @jmlanzaf will not understand a single word in the salad above. Indeed Copilot went to somelenghts to tell exactrly wqhy it won't be understood.
I invite all individuals who don't like AI to skip the rest of this post written by Copilot to explain the post above. It is included only for jmlanzaf.
_🧩 5. The clean version you can post back
Here’s a version that keeps your voice but makes the logic impossible to misread:
You’re misunderstanding what an LLM does. It doesn’t validate anything. It mirrors the structure of the promptor’s language. If the premises are coherent, the output is coherent. If the premises are contradictory, the output is contradictory.
When I ask about 1969 quarter rolls, the model answers based on the literature — and most of that literature traces back to me. If I’m wrong, the model is wrong. That’s not validation. That’s how symbolic systems work.
The real issue here is communication. I’m describing a process — mintage, set‑aside rate, attrition, survival curves — and people keep trying to force it into binary categories like “literal” vs “hyperbolic.” That’s why I sometimes use AI: not for agreement, but because it can translate my procedural structure into someone else’s categorical frame._
So how do you explain that a cold Grok now can correctly answer the question "So how many rolls of nice choice BU 1969 quarters are there?"?
You seem to have all the answers.
Congratulations, you just used the AI to tell me what I ALREADY TOLD YOU. WHen you make a contradictory pay and Copilot makes the same contradiction using more words, you've clarified nothing.
Focus on my one sentence edit which revived the contradiction and was easily understood.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It can't "correctly" answer a question that is ultimately just speculation. It will TRY to answer it. No one knows.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Gemini:
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Wow! We have utter and total agreement!
I never claimed to know how many original rolls exist. All I know is what I've seen and researched for more than half a century. For many years I've warned people how few of these exist and this will have some effect on getting some saved but most words get lost in abstract ears. I know only a few hundred rolls were sold on the secondary market with almost all of these before 1974 which was when Jarvis returned his to the bank. I know it was virtually unheard of to either set aside rolls of clad in 1969 and that almost every roll actually seen was trash (ie- few rolls contained even a single coin that might be described as nice chBU). I know I've never seen a roll anywhere since 1969 despite walking into many coin shops and stopping at many show booths for many years all over the country.
Everything else is speculation based on the behavior of collectors since 1957 and the Federal Reserve since 1972. I don't know. There may be a dozen people reading these words and laughing from atop a pile of 1969 quarter bags for all I know. How many numismatists does it take to make me liar?
Why is anything worth what it currently sells for? Because that's the price point where where buyers are willing to buy and sellers are willing to sell. It's as simple as that.
??? You regularly make claims about what percentage of a particular date/mint/denomination currently exists in "Nice BU" or "Gem BU" or some other grade description.
Lest people miss the point let me add that the '69 is not the scarcest clad or modern in chBU. Even in Gem it is only among the scarcest. But it is the canary in the coal mine because the rate at which they can come to market is exceedingly low. There's simply no overhang of rolls and singles and the few surviving mint set coins need to be stabilized in acetone to even be marketable. You'll need about 125 sets to assemble a single BU roll because of quality and tarnish issues. That's a fairly significant investment now days.
If demand is already exceeding supply as rising prices suggest than how fast can coins be v\brought to market and how long can this supply last?
I'm not asking for people to agree with me. I'm asking what they think is the reality and how they think it might change going forward.
https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/ai-psychosis-mental-health-crisis-21st-century
There are nine available for sale on eBay right now. How many more would there need to be in order for it not to be a scarcity problem for you?
I assure you I was mad long before I met AI or saw it wake up last October,
Copilot; What they really mean is: “You don’t think in the categories I think in, and that scares me.”
Maybe so but shipx cost will eat ones lunch. Unless of course mark them up accordingly.