Yeah I definitely get your point (and I didn’t downvote you, for the record). But I will note that ChatGPT generates text way faster than most people can read, and 4 tokens/second, while perhaps slower than reading speed for some people, is not that bad in my experience.

It depends on what you mean by “relative responsiveness”, but you can absolutely get ~4 tokens/sec of performance on R1 671b (Q4 quantized) from a system costing a fraction of the number you quote.

It is indeed called a refund by the IRS and all tax professionals. The person(s) attempting to correct your use of “refund” are wrong, but they were probably trying to make the point that giving a lot of extra money to the government interest-free is not a smart financial idea.

So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion?

I’m not passing any judgement on whether anything is an “OK comment.” In fact, on the topic being discussed, I think I agree with you more than the person you’re replying to. As I said though, I only stopped by to comment on your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem, because it’s super fucking annoying to me when people throw that term around when they don’t know what they’re doing.

you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT, no matter how good or bad as it might be, and no matter how much it is surrounded by words that you view as insulting. In fact, if anyone is resorting to an ad hominem here, it’s you, by attacking their character and dancing around the actual meat of their argument (again, as good or bad as it might be). Therefore I hope you agree with me that the other commenter did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Or did you not read the link I posted yet?

Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said. Did you even read the post I linked to? You’re wrong; it’s cool though, we all make mistakes. Accept it and move on.

You don’t just get to call any words that you don’t like, or even words directly attacking you, an ad hominem. A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person making the argument INSTEAD OF the actual content of the argument. “Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot” is an ad hominem. What the other commenter said to you is not. Note that people claiming “ad hominem” on statements that are not are sometimes said to be committing an “ad hominem fallacy fallacy.”

https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

I don’t have any skin in this game but just want to point out that “I understand you are hurt and angry” is an attempt to empathize with you, and not an ad hominem fallacy.