3 ms·

I think its unfair and asinine to caricature sceptics as ignorant people in denial, holding on to some outdated idea of a soul. That's the sort of argument some

I think its unfair and asinine to caricature sceptics as ignorant people in denial, holding on to some outdated idea of a soul. That's the sort of argument someone makes when they're so entrenched in their own views they see nothing but their own biases.

whimsicalism 4y ago
Ask people to describe how they think the mind functions and you will very often get something very akin to soul-like belief. Many, many people are not very comfortable with the mind as emergent phenomenon. A straight majority of people in the US (and likely globally) believe in souls when polled, you are the one imputing the words of "ignorant people in denial" onto my statement of why people find views to the contrary uncomfortable. I understand that HN is a civil community. I don't think it is crossing the line to characterize people I disagree with as wrong and also theorize on why they might hold those wrong beliefs. Indeed, you are doing the same thing with my comment - speculating on why I might hold views that are 'asinine' because I see 'nothing but [my] own biases.'
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  I'm not saying it's not true of most people in the world, but that doesn't make it a constructive argument. And you didn't use the words ignorant and denial, but they're reasonable synonyms to what you did say. When I do the "same thing" I'm really saying that when you represent yourself as from the field, you might want to cultivate a more nuanced view of the people outside the field, if you want to be taken seriously. Instead, given the view you presented, I'm forced to give your views the same credence I give a physicist who says their model of quantum gravity is definitely the correct one. I.e: "sure, you'd say that, wouldn't you"
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    I am providing a reason why "the public" might be uncomfortable around these ideas. You accuse me of misrepresenting the public's beliefs as ignorant and outdated when really the public has a nuanced view on this subject. I am merely taking the majority of people at their word when they are polled on the subject. Most people believe in souls. Most people do not believe in minds as emergent out of interactions of neurons. I am not sure how to cultivate a more nuanced view on this when flat majorities of people say when asked that they hold the belief I am imputing on them. Am I saying that this is where all skepticism comes from? No. Is it a considerable portion? Yes.
sebzim4500 4y ago
Being sceptical of chatGPT is entirely reasonable, and there is plenty of room for discussion on exactly when we will hit the limits of scalining LLMs. No one who has used chatGPT more than a couple of times will argue in good faith that it is a "parrot", however, unless they have an extremely weird definition of "parrot".

whimsicalism 4y ago

Ask people to describe how they think the mind functions and you will very often get something very akin to soul-like belief. Many, many people are not very comfortable with the mind as emergent phenomenon. A straight majority of people in the US (and likely globally) believe in souls when polled, you are the one imputing the words of "ignorant people in denial" onto my statement of why people find views to the contrary uncomfortable. I understand that HN is a civil community. I don't think it is crossing the line to characterize people I disagree with as wrong and also theorize on why they might hold those wrong beliefs. Indeed, you are doing the same thing with my comment - speculating on why I might hold views that are 'asinine' because I see 'nothing but [my] own biases.'

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
I'm not saying it's not true of most people in the world, but that doesn't make it a constructive argument. And you didn't use the words ignorant and denial, but they're reasonable synonyms to what you did say. When I do the "same thing" I'm really saying that when you represent yourself as from the field, you might want to cultivate a more nuanced view of the people outside the field, if you want to be taken seriously. Instead, given the view you presented, I'm forced to give your views the same credence I give a physicist who says their model of quantum gravity is definitely the correct one. I.e: "sure, you'd say that, wouldn't you"
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  I am providing a reason why "the public" might be uncomfortable around these ideas. You accuse me of misrepresenting the public's beliefs as ignorant and outdated when really the public has a nuanced view on this subject. I am merely taking the majority of people at their word when they are polled on the subject. Most people believe in souls. Most people do not believe in minds as emergent out of interactions of neurons. I am not sure how to cultivate a more nuanced view on this when flat majorities of people say when asked that they hold the belief I am imputing on them. Am I saying that this is where all skepticism comes from? No. Is it a considerable portion? Yes.

sebzim4500 4y ago

Being sceptical of chatGPT is entirely reasonable, and there is plenty of room for discussion on exactly when we will hit the limits of scalining LLMs. No one who has used chatGPT more than a couple of times will argue in good faith that it is a "parrot", however, unless they have an extremely weird definition of "parrot".