3 ms·
> one should review You seem to be forgetting that sometimes you do not know if a recipe can produce a dangerous result. Realizing that you should not jump of
by mdp2021 3y ago
> one should review
You seem to be forgetting that sometimes you do not know if a recipe can produce a dangerous result.
Realizing that you should not jump off that cliff should be trivial; the outcomes of some chemical reaction may easily not be. That chemistry teacher that won the Darwin Award for beheading herself by dumping random chemicals of her lab (for disposal) under a manhole did not predict the reaction; easily the layman will not know what some combination will produce: this is why you need a trustworthy source.
- yreg 3y agoSounds like in such a case the same can occur with a recipe invented by human.
- ben_w 3y agoCan, yes. I bet that if a supermarket suggested winging it with fugu or moonshine this would also be criticised.
- mdp2021 3y ago> [OP: ] this is why you need a trustworthy source > the same can occur with a recipe invented by human Yes, this is why we do not take advice from random humans on random matters, this is why we want qualified, educated, expert opinions.
- yreg 3y agoWe do take advice on cooking from internet randos though. If you don't then I believe you are in a small minority.
- mdp2021 3y agoAnd the «responsibility» that Berkes was talking about also refers to knowing that the information from «randos» may be wrong, ignorant, deceitful. And in many cases, I observed, that instances are such is not apparent (you are looking for advice after all). But while human condition should be known, the more specialized the tool the more the responsibility is brought to the tool, not to the user. If John says it you may want to check; if the book says it you should still put limited trust, but the fault in bad information lies more in the proclaimed authority. You heard of "Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me": here, "Fool me by fool shame on me; fool me by foolery shame on you". > minority "Descriptive" and "prescriptive" don't overlap.
- mongol 3y agoI remember a story where a newspaper printed a recipe containing nutmeg. Somehow it was confusing so a family put something like six nutmeg seeds in the dish instead of six ml (can't recall exact measurements, nor if the recipe mentioned the seeds incorrectly). Poisoning and hospital visit followed. Edit: this was the story (Swedish) https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/fel-i-kakreceptet-forgiftade-lasare/ https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/fel-i-kakreceptet-forg...
- droopyEyelids 3y agoYour anecdote touches on an interesting aspect of the LLM discourse, where people assume "the standard" here on Earth is God-like correctness, or perhaps the Perfect Parent that Knows Everything. That was never the case, there was no source of all information that was always right and didn't make mistakes. Even professionally assembled encyclopedias had errors. Newspapers published recipes without explaining the dangers of nutmeg overdoses. Experts in a field might know a lot about a single subject but go outside of that and they'd have as crazy of opinions and believe as much bogus folklore as anyone else.
- mdp2021 3y agoEven in the history of epistemology we learn that paradigms are sometimes overcome with old age and new generations. But in the case of AI there is a paradox: if we did not benefit from tools, if tools were not sought, there would be little interest in the matter.