- 9 Posts
- 294 Comments
1·2 days agoModern thought not only relies on thought built upon other people, it relies on trusting textbooks, data aggregators like weather apps, google search results, bus route apps, wikipedia, forum posts, etc. etc.
I don’t think it’s ungenerous at all to question whether are LLMs really any different in this regard. You take in information from an imperfect automated source, just as we’ve done for a really long time, depending on the definition.
The no thought is truly independent is also a bit of a strawman. The point was, the more complex technology you have, the more the same ideas spread and thought is harmonized (which is good in some ways, standardization makes things easier).
5·2 days agoIt’s approaching the lower levels of human reasoning, which, as we have realized over the past few years, isn’t that impressive.
Depends on the circumstances. After one year of wfh in a 18m2 apartment, I happily go to the office 4-5 days a week, even though I am not required to.
Well, I do consider this post, as a rephrasing of
thinking through a chain of logic instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning
not made in good faith. You don’t engage with the point I’m making at all. Instead, you pivot from understanding the logic to making sure the sources are trustworthy. Which is a fair standard for critical thought or whatever, but definitely not what the original contention of the first commenter was. Which was heavily upvoted (=a popular opinition?), and which originally I replied to.
Also, hearing “How so? What’s your alternative assertion” after ten comments worth of people going out their way to misunderstand my point, presumably because they dislike AI, is not motivating.
Well I first replied to that first comment. Then people started making completely different claims and the point got lost in the sauce.
Edit: why should I take the time to formulate my thoughts well if you have demonstrated that you don’t give even the slightest hint of good faith to understand what I’m saying?
think for themselves and create for themselves without leaning on a glorified Markov chain
If you think your comment and this are the same thing, then I don’t know what to say.
This has very little to do with the criticism given by the first commenter. And you can use AI and do this, they are not in any way exclusive.
13·5 days agoYou are way too insulting and aggressive to have a discussion with.
You spread misinformation and somehow you’re also the victim here.
Apropos the edit: No you’re not getting away with this. The linked article is copy pasted from the Reuters article. It is the Reuters article.
So what you’re taking issue with is one of the most reputable Western news sources doing their job, as clinically and unbiasedly as they always do. They don’t editorialize.
You are acting like one of those Russia bots in the comment sections that we all are so familiar with.
MOSCOW, May 18 (Reuters) - The founder of the Telegram messaging app said on Sunday he had refused a request by a Western government, which he did not name but appeared to imply was France, to silence conservative voices in Romania ahead of a presidential election run-off there.
The story is identical to the one on reuters.com. There is no propagandistic phrasing of things, the article states what different parties claim, and refers to the French foreign ministry, which makes it undoubtably relevant. I don’t know how that can be possibly misconstrued as biased or factually shakey.
So thank you for eurofied mccarthyism. Really doesn’t make it any easier to navigate around Russian propaganda when you pollute the information ecosystem. And also voids your reasonable criticism of Telegram and Durov BTW.
Maybe criticize Durov then instead?
I mean sure but I really wouldn’t like a random foreign country requesting cencorship to sway my elections even if it was to combat bad things™. Though it’s not like Russia isn’t doing the same thing too.
Yeah but that’s not what we are expecting people to do.
In our extremely complicated world, most thinking relies on trusting sources. You can’t independently study and derive most things.
Otherwise everybody should do their own research about vaccines. But the reasonable thing is to trust a lot of other, more knowledgeable people.
Yeah sure buddy.
Have you tried to shoehorn real life stuff into mathematical notation? It is restrictive. You have pre-defined strict boxes that don’t have blurry lines. Free form thoughts are a lot more flexible than that.
Consistency is restrictive. I don’t know why you take issue with that.
Things are weirder than they seem on the surface.
A math professor collegue of mine calls extremely restrictive use of language ”rigor”, for example.
Independent thought? All relevant thought is highly dependent of other people and their thoughts.
That’s exactly why I bring this up. Having systems that teach people to think in a similar way enable us to build complex stuff and have a modern society.
That’s why it’s really weird to hear this ”people should think for themselves” criticism of AI. It’s a similar justification to antivaxxers saying you ”should do your own research”.
Surely there are better reasons to oppose AI?
People haven’t ”thought for themselves” since the printing press was invented. You gotta be more specific than that.
Some of the more complex proofs might be wrong just because so few understand them, and the ones who do might have made mistakes.
Hell, I’ll trust a math result much more if it’s backed up by empirical evidence from eg. engineering or physics.
Don’t know if that counts as being ”in math” by OPs definition.
It’s never been so easy to download music. Soulseek, yt-dlp, torrents for older stuff, spotify downloader websites etc. I still have spotify but I started growing my local music collection a few years ago. Considering canceling my spotify subscription.