4 ms·

Human beings can also not distinguish between fantasy and reality (on average), it is just that we're all used to our own fantasies and can work around them. In

Human beings can also not distinguish between fantasy and reality (on average), it is just that we're all used to our own fantasies and can work around them. In this case, the poster did not understand why something was the case and has indicated they are out of their depth: The AI response is meant to serve as a bridge to more useful discussion. It provides a few reference points of view which gives the OP something to respond to, other than just literally every aspect of why they feel something is the case. It's not meant as an exhaustive source that is correct about everything - we're talking about philosophy, such a source doesn't exist in the first place. Therefore, decrying something on the grounds that it is possibly not correct is the worst kind of response: If that is the bar, nobody may respond.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> Human beings can also not distinguish between fantasy and reality (on average) this statement is prima facie untrue, and quite ridiculous sounding it is certainly the case that humans can sometimes not tell without checking, which is it's important to verify the output is correct rather than relying on our own sometimes faulty wrongness detection capabilities the AI output could have been completely made up, hence why it can't be relied upon for factual claims like you relied upon it for factual claims
- krageon 3y ago
  > this statement is prima facie untrue, and quite ridiculous sounding If it sounds ridiculous to you, I invite you to speak to some actual human beings. They believe so many things that are patently ridiculous (and frequently contradict) it's like stepping into an ocean of lies. I'm honestly surprised that this specific part of my statement is that weird to you. > it's important to verify the output is correct rather than relying on our own sometimes faulty wrongness detection capabilities This is a step you must take with both AI and people. Given that this is the case, I do not see a difference in value in terms of the reliability of facts. If anything, you could make a case that human imagination is more valuable (because the AI is just a mathematical reproduction of whatever imagination went into it). That said, I can't think of why it would be the case outside of a human superiority angle, which is tedious. > the AI output could have been completely made up Hence why I called it a springboard for further discussion and not an encyclopedia of absolute fact. > you relied upon it for factual claims I did not. That post isn't mine.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > If it sounds ridiculous to you, I invite you to speak to some actual human beings sure, I will speak to you below are 10 propositions, each either fantasy or reality. I invite you to try to determine which is which, then we can find out whether the comment about the average is true: A. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=0 B. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=1 C. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=2 D. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=3 E. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=4 F. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=5 G. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=6 H. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=7 I. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=8 J. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=9

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> Human beings can also not distinguish between fantasy and reality (on average) this statement is prima facie untrue, and quite ridiculous sounding it is certainly the case that humans can sometimes not tell without checking, which is it's important to verify the output is correct rather than relying on our own sometimes faulty wrongness detection capabilities the AI output could have been completely made up, hence why it can't be relied upon for factual claims like you relied upon it for factual claims

krageon 3y ago
> this statement is prima facie untrue, and quite ridiculous sounding If it sounds ridiculous to you, I invite you to speak to some actual human beings. They believe so many things that are patently ridiculous (and frequently contradict) it's like stepping into an ocean of lies. I'm honestly surprised that this specific part of my statement is that weird to you. > it's important to verify the output is correct rather than relying on our own sometimes faulty wrongness detection capabilities This is a step you must take with both AI and people. Given that this is the case, I do not see a difference in value in terms of the reliability of facts. If anything, you could make a case that human imagination is more valuable (because the AI is just a mathematical reproduction of whatever imagination went into it). That said, I can't think of why it would be the case outside of a human superiority angle, which is tedious. > the AI output could have been completely made up Hence why I called it a springboard for further discussion and not an encyclopedia of absolute fact. > you relied upon it for factual claims I did not. That post isn't mine.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > If it sounds ridiculous to you, I invite you to speak to some actual human beings sure, I will speak to you below are 10 propositions, each either fantasy or reality. I invite you to try to determine which is which, then we can find out whether the comment about the average is true: A. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=0 B. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=1 C. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=2 D. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=3 E. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=4 F. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=5 G. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=6 H. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=7 I. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=8 J. In elementary mathematics, 1+1=9