I don’t need a reason not to believe in God. It’s an incoherent idea. Even you don’t know what it means.
You probably imagine some Santa Claus character on a throne. But I don’t know which God I should be imagining? Athena? Indra? The All Spirit? Spaghetti Monster?
State the thesis clearly, then present your evidence.
"Black hole" is a coherent, testable idea. It has real world physical implications, and is the simplest explanation for what we do see. There isn't a Korean version of a black hole vs. a version accepted by the Kurds. There are no stories of black holes befriending humans. In fact, there is nothing about a black hole that seems to care about humanity.
"God" is a vague fantasy, invented by the first people and slightly updated as technology changed. It has been made concrete, yes, but in many different and irreconcilable ways since the dawn of human imagination. So you can't just "believe in God." You believe in some particular version of "God." And that version is probably dictated by whatever your parents believed, rather than by the actual state of reality.
I call this self-repudiation. I performed a systematic experiment on this exact matter, a couple of years ago. I found that ChatGPT 3.5 frequently self-repudiated, whereas 4.0, under identical circumstances, rarely did.
These experiments are a bit expensive to run because you are forced to read all the responses to judge repudiation. Sometimes it is subtle.
Also, behavior changes with the exact wording of the question.
“You are demonstrating that you do not trust the relationship enough”
This is entirely rational when a relationship is not strong, and a misstep could cause it to sour in a way not easily remedied. If I have to work with you, and can’t fire you, then I don’t want to foul the nest.
As my coworkers get to know me, they will drop the unnecessary politeness automatically, according to Zipf’s law. They will find I react well to straightforward communication once we have established trust.
The problem is I don’t know that, and I’m not convinced the author can know that either. Perhaps it influenced him in ways he is not aware.
My policy is I never let AI draft anything I write. It’s all my voice and my constructions. If I quote AI I will make that explicit. I do allow AI to review and complain about my work, but not to make any changes.
I don’t want anyone to be justified in questioning my authenticity the way I am justified in questioning the authenticity of this author.
Yes, the issues is that LLMs sometimes fill semantic gaps.
When I write an article and I notice that there are steps missing for a conclusion then I do some research and fill them in.
These gaps often only show up when drafting, so if the LLM drafts, it might see a need to fill them in. You read the draft and see no steps are missing, but since you didn't do the research for the filled in steps, and they "look good to you", you might miss errors.
“Fragile ego” is such a tired trope. It is certainly a factor, but its effects are way overestimated. Something about “fragile ego” seems to stop people from thinking any further.
“Looking stupid” has an obvious downside. Just restate it as “proven incompetent.” If you are proven incompetent within your social group, you lose your power. Loss of power has terrible consequences! Duh!
When someone blames fragile ego, which is equivalent to saying “fear of losing self-respect” but ignores “being ostracized from access to resources and influence by people you depend upon and respect” I might conclude that I should ignore what that person thinks, because maybe they have a thinking impairment. (See how that works?)
Young people are not trying things because they are fearless, nor do they have bullet-proof egos, they are trying things because they really are stupid (in a gentle manner of speaking). They don’t know as much as they will know. Also, they know they have no social status and they must take risks to prove themselves.
Finally, they do it because they have nothing else to do and nothing else to protect.
Right I think there probably isn’t one book that encapsulates the entire Internet today. The first book you mentioned has ideas that parallel YouTube and influencers whereas you have other books like “Neurmancer” and “A Logic Named Joe” that resemble World Wide Web and Wikipedia.
Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge and Accelerando by Charles Stross both have a lot of parallels with current AI and Internet developments, and are great books to boot. Accelerando has free ebook versions available, which I am happy to share, thanks to the author and publisher. I can’t recommend cstross highly enough. Vinge needs no introduction, though the work mentioned is somewhat less well known and later than his more renowned works.
I have an idea for an “evidence editor.” Claude is waiting for me to tell it exactly what I want this thing to be. But I don’t know. I haven’t figured out how to square the various circles, even in my fantasies. Until I do, Claude sits and waits. And waits…
reply