4 ms·
> “White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall … ” Fortunately there's an easy solution: we ca
by Clewza313 5y ago
> “White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall … ”
Fortunately there's an easy solution: we can just replace "white" and "black" with neutral alternatives like "allow" and "deny" or "pass" and "block".
- basilgohar 5y agoWas this reply made by an AI? The context of the suggestions seem GPT-3 close...
- axiom92 5y agoThis is what GPT-3 (davinci, the 175B parameter model) generates for real: * Prompt: ">White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall..." Fortunately there's an easy solution: * GPT-3 Response: Just don't play chess! This is the only solution. The reason for this is that the "chess is bad for you" argument is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent". It goes like this: If A, then B B Therefore A In other words, if chess is bad for you, and you play chess, then you'll be bad for you. The fallacy can be seen by simply replacing "A" and "B" with two different statements, for example: The sky is blue Some birds fly Therefore, some birds are blue. See the difference? The argument against chess can be logically rephrased as "Chess is bad for you, and those who play chess will be bad for you. Therefore chess is bad for you."
- kbelder 5y ago"Chess is bad for you, and those who play chess will be bad for you. Therefore chess is bad for you." Can't find a flaw in that argument.
- flippinburgers 5y agoThey are referencing the whitelist/blacklist debacle.
- Clewza313 5y agoBleep bloop. No, I was just testing out Poe's law.