3 ms·

There's a really fun, and deeply relevant, historical tidbit on the history of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' That statement didn't actually come from any

There's a really fun, and deeply relevant, historical tidbit on the history of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' That statement didn't actually come from any court case along those lines. Instead it was first used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case Schenck vs the United States, as a metaphor. [1] So, what was the egregious offense, endangering all of society by words alone, uttered by by Schenck? This "yelling fire in a crowded theater"? Charles Schenck was a member of the local Socialist party, and was distributing fliers urging draft age men to oppose the draft (for World War 1) on the grounds that it entailed involuntary servitude, outlawed by the 13th amendment. So there's your "yelling fire in a crowded theater" when you concede your right of free speech to the government. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

perihelions 3y ago
The meta-lesson I've learned from these types of examples is that language is a slippery construct: the more you wander away from concrete words and specific meanings, in the direction of metaphors and abstractions, the easier it is to convince of yourself of stupid things. It's on the back of my mind a lot when worrying about LLM's. The power to convince, and the power to reason, are very different things.
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > worrying about LLM's https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
- hnfong 3y ago
  In my years of arguing with people online (#xkcd386), I notice that those who resort to metaphors and analogies often have the least convincing arguments. Metaphors are great when you're explaining a difficult concept (of which you've attained a satisfactory level of understanding) to a willing listener, but it's really easy to enter the slippery slope you mentioned if the correctness of something is in dispute. These days when I see a argument based on metaphor, I just ... disengage.

perihelions 3y ago

The meta-lesson I've learned from these types of examples is that language is a slippery construct: the more you wander away from concrete words and specific meanings, in the direction of metaphors and abstractions, the easier it is to convince of yourself of stupid things. It's on the back of my mind a lot when worrying about LLM's. The power to convince, and the power to reason, are very different things.

commandlinefan 3y ago
> worrying about LLM's https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
hnfong 3y ago
In my years of arguing with people online (#xkcd386), I notice that those who resort to metaphors and analogies often have the least convincing arguments. Metaphors are great when you're explaining a difficult concept (of which you've attained a satisfactory level of understanding) to a willing listener, but it's really easy to enter the slippery slope you mentioned if the correctness of something is in dispute. These days when I see a argument based on metaphor, I just ... disengage.