As expected the LLM does understand what you're trying to say. A rational actor would use this opportunity to update their priors but something tells me you're not a rational actor. Pity.
This was on chatgpt, tell free to try for yourself, since you probably think it's fake.
Prompt:
Do you understand what user 2 is trying to say in below context?
User1: No one said you cannot run LLMs with the same task more than once
User2: no one said you can't turn on the radio and start listening to static
User2: Ask the LLM if it understands what I'm trying to say
Response:
Yes. User 2 is making an analogy, not a literal rebuttal.
What they’re trying to say is roughly this:
> Just because something is allowed or possible doesn’t mean it’s meaningful or useful.
More specifically:
User1’s claim:
“You can run an LLM on the same task more than once.”
→ This frames repeatability as neutral or acceptable.
User2’s analogy:
“You can turn on the radio and listen to static.”
→ Yes, it’s allowed — but it’s noise, not signal.
So User 2 is implying that:
Re-running an LLM on the same task (especially without controlling randomness, evaluation criteria, or epistemic grounding) may just produce stochastic variation rather than new information.
Treating multiple runs as meaningful evidence can be like mistaking static for content.
In epistemic terms, they’re criticizing procedural permissibility being confused with epistemic value. The analogy suggests:
