3 ms·

> Honestly, if you're generating these responses with GPT-3 that's a pretty funny and creative use of the tool, and you completely got me for the first couple o

> Honestly, if you're generating these responses with GPT-3 that's a pretty funny and creative use of the tool, and you completely got me for the first couple of posts! Biological AI is not particularly novel either, the probability of this class of comment NOT appearing during disagreements between humans is rare...but only for certain topics. I wonder if we were to review our conversation, how many (at least plausible) instances of it we could individually nominate. > If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim... a) "take X seriously" is not a True/False binary" - would you be willing to discuss this aspect and the significance of it to the topic? b) considering (a), have you not made broad claims about the quality/intent of journalism organizations? c) arguing a point is fine, asserting it as a fact (or in the form of a fact without acknowledging it as an opinion) is something else, and the acceptability of this behavior seems to vary depending on the topic. > ...that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove... I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play. (Like in this case: I made no such claim.) Do you think there is any merit to this proposal? > ...whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed. I am unimpressed (but not surprised in the slightest) that you say "is" "just something you know", immediately after me saying "Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example)." > Can't speak for other normies.... Why not? You know what employees of journalism institutions do, do you not have the same ability with normies? > (I'll leave that to you)... Which I've done only in a certain way, and only to a certain degree. > ...but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments. Many of them do indeed, but what stupid arguments have I made? And do you believe that the fact that some conspiracy theorists make make mind-numbingly stupid arguments has any bearing on the truth value of the point of contention between the two of us? (Or, perhaps the comment was more for rhetorical effect, or simply an innate reaction.) I think this (and related topics) has substantial relevance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism Any thoughts on that?

notahacker 4y ago
I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play. Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory. There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution, and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1], rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people" and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience. This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory. Was yours a suggestion that that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island "seriously" (a highly ambiguous term, a perfect fit for current cultural norms), or was it more of a claim of fact? > There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution... This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc). > ...and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1]... My complaint is that humans perceive and represent opinions as facts. My proposal is that we stop doing this, or at least admit as individuals and a culture that this is how things currently work. What is actually true here is not known, hence I do not make an assertion of facts of what happened (with respect to the underlying crime). This approach is celebrated when done by science, but in other domains it seems to be considered the opposite of the correct way to behave. > ...rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people"... Despite me addressing exactly this claim at least once already, you continue to misrepresent what I have actually said: I haven't rejected investigations as being necessarily false, but rather your claims that you possess knowledge (as opposed to belief) about the actions and quality of reporting. > ... and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience. I don't find it funny, it scares the fuck out of me. > This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication. It stops the instance of the problem, but the underlying problem (people refusing to consider the importance of truth) does not go away.

notahacker 4y ago

I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play. Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory. There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution, and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1], rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people" and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience. This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.

mistermann 4y ago
> Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory. Was yours a suggestion that that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island "seriously" (a highly ambiguous term, a perfect fit for current cultural norms), or was it more of a claim of fact? > There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution... This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc). > ...and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1]... My complaint is that humans perceive and represent opinions as facts. My proposal is that we stop doing this, or at least admit as individuals and a culture that this is how things currently work. What is actually true here is not known, hence I do not make an assertion of facts of what happened (with respect to the underlying crime). This approach is celebrated when done by science, but in other domains it seems to be considered the opposite of the correct way to behave. > ...rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people"... Despite me addressing exactly this claim at least once already, you continue to misrepresent what I have actually said: I haven't rejected investigations as being necessarily false, but rather your claims that you possess knowledge (as opposed to belief) about the actions and quality of reporting. > ... and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience. I don't find it funny, it scares the fuck out of me. > This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication. It stops the instance of the problem, but the underlying problem (people refusing to consider the importance of truth) does not go away.