4 ms·

I call BS! I'd like to see the original paper, or better yet, a replication of the study. Sure, on a cold day a hot coffee may be nice to hold and an iced coff

I call BS! I'd like to see the original paper, or better yet, a replication of the study. Sure, on a cold day a hot coffee may be nice to hold and an iced coffee may be unpleasant. But on a hot day? The hot coffee burns your hands; the iced coffee is refreshing to hold. And this is even accepting the premise of the claim. (Or perhaps it's reversed! Maybe we'd be more likely to think well of someone who asked us to do something mildly unpleasant, in a Franklin-esque way, and resent someone who offered us a pleasant moment only to take it away.) (Or maybe the idea is mental association? I do, after all, think well of glassblowers and distrust ice cream vendors.) Are we unknowingly influenced by little things, by the wrong things? Definitey, but I'd be surprised if this were an accurate example. edit: my apologies for the bit of snark ^^' I am tickled a bit by the story, though.

mdp2021 3y ago
> I call Possibly, but that (that the case mentioned by Tony Robbins is not factual) is not the important thing: it is an example of what is involved in not vetting ideas. Practice ("before accepting an idea, think") that should be a basically held mandate - also (not primarily) given the warnings of a large part of psychology that shows how easy it is to be fooled. If you want more solid examples, I recommend the speeches from Charlie Munger about "human misjudgement", which take much from Cialdini and consolidated researchers (and have a "been there, seen that" seal from Munger). Behaviour that is avoidable in humans, we surely do not want in machines. Tools are there to enhance strength, not weakness. "Before accepting an idea, think": this we "expect" from all.
Applejinx 3y ago
I think the idea is mental association. In essence, the story's suggesting that people 'hallucinate' in just the same way as AI, taking an experience where there's an arbitrary connection to 'warm' or 'cold' and unjustifiably attributing that, using it in an arbitrary place because it's present in their 'weights'. I think that's a good story, because I think such unjustified 'weights' DO have a profound effect. That it's BS is entirely the point. It's a fable about hallucination. It's part of intelligence.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > people "hallucinate" Yes, but let us be clear about the critical point: humans do have a faculty - whether they use it or not - to check their thought for foundations, for validity. And this faculty is the condition for a legitimacy to make statements. People may conjure unfounded ideas, immature constructs (this is studied since millennia): but well developed intellects then process those ideas, test them, refine them. Given that it is relatively easy to be fooled, or dramatically easy (especially since mistakes can have a unbelievably staggering cost), and we are supposed to know that - after psychology, criminology etc., or just simply after the facts that we are more experienced than infants -, the problem of discrimination and reflection remain central and critical. And (just in case): there is absolutely no need to emulate fools: the goal is the opposite.

mdp2021 3y ago

> I call Possibly, but that (that the case mentioned by Tony Robbins is not factual) is not the important thing: it is an example of what is involved in not vetting ideas. Practice ("before accepting an idea, think") that should be a basically held mandate - also (not primarily) given the warnings of a large part of psychology that shows how easy it is to be fooled. If you want more solid examples, I recommend the speeches from Charlie Munger about "human misjudgement", which take much from Cialdini and consolidated researchers (and have a "been there, seen that" seal from Munger). Behaviour that is avoidable in humans, we surely do not want in machines. Tools are there to enhance strength, not weakness. "Before accepting an idea, think": this we "expect" from all.

Applejinx 3y ago

I think the idea is mental association. In essence, the story's suggesting that people 'hallucinate' in just the same way as AI, taking an experience where there's an arbitrary connection to 'warm' or 'cold' and unjustifiably attributing that, using it in an arbitrary place because it's present in their 'weights'. I think that's a good story, because I think such unjustified 'weights' DO have a profound effect. That it's BS is entirely the point. It's a fable about hallucination. It's part of intelligence.

mdp2021 3y ago
> people "hallucinate" Yes, but let us be clear about the critical point: humans do have a faculty - whether they use it or not - to check their thought for foundations, for validity. And this faculty is the condition for a legitimacy to make statements. People may conjure unfounded ideas, immature constructs (this is studied since millennia): but well developed intellects then process those ideas, test them, refine them. Given that it is relatively easy to be fooled, or dramatically easy (especially since mistakes can have a unbelievably staggering cost), and we are supposed to know that - after psychology, criminology etc., or just simply after the facts that we are more experienced than infants -, the problem of discrimination and reflection remain central and critical. And (just in case): there is absolutely no need to emulate fools: the goal is the opposite.