5 ms·

Bro. You are not addressing the dichotomy. Why is it in some instances you need stats and huge sample sizes and in other instances you need only one witness to

Bro. You are not addressing the dichotomy. Why is it in some instances you need stats and huge sample sizes and in other instances you need only one witness to convict someone for murder? All your doing is regurgitating the same bs everyone knows about the nature of science, statistics and sample sizes that are all blindingly obvious to anyone. I am presenting to you a valid dilemma that your big brain is skipping over because of your blind loyalty to science. You do not need a scientific study to tell you the sky is blue. A court doesn't need a thousand witnesses to convict a murder. Have you ever wondered why? Do you need me to give you 1000 IQ questions to verify that you are an intelligent being? Do you need to give your mother or father those same tests to verify their intelligence? You have common sense right? You can talk to your mom and basically bypass science to verify her intelligence right? Why the hell all of a sudden do you need a rigorous scientific study to verify the intellectual abilities of chatGPT? Your so smart that you can know your mother is intelligent without assessing her with 5000 iq questions but for chatGPT you suddenly need the raw power of scientific rigor to come to any conclusion? You can't just talk to it yourself and make your own conclusion? Bro. You're irrational. chatGPT beat 17 doctors in seconds and it doesn't even phase you. But your mom who has likely never taken an IQ test doesn't need one test to verify her intelligence. Go above the level of scientific rigor. Einstein didn't need sample sizes and statistics to speculate about black holes and general relativity. The verification came later, but the math and nature of reality was formulated and judged correct through common sense I described above. This was way before anything Einstein proposed was verified by "stats". Do you not have the ability to bypass statistical data and formulate conclusions without it? Looks like no.

rvz 3y ago
> Bro. You are not addressing the dichotomy. Why is it in some instances you need stats and huge sample sizes and in other instances you need only one witness to convict someone for murder? Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of LLMs like ChatGPT tells us that not only it is non-deterministic but it cannot be trusted at all and in that context, it always requires humans to check it and for the case of how reliable it is it needs much more experiments and scientific methods by others to attest that. This is exactly why medical professionals in this case will laugh at your question. For clinicians to use one study as the truth and basis with a low sample of 1 or 30 to show whether a medical device is reliable, especially an AI as a medical device is beyond ridiculous. > All your doing is regurgitating the same bs everyone knows about the nature of science, statistics and sample sizes that are all blindingly obvious to anyone. So why aren't you able to understand that then? Except that your mistake was to begin by comparing the research methods in the legal profession and the medical profession and to use that in this case as a flawed analogy to show that 'reliability' is the same in both of them. Which I'm afraid you only confused yourself. > I am presenting to you a valid dilemma... Which again is irrelevant and besides the point. Everything after that is on the point of what I've already said on transparent explainability, which it is known that LLMs and AI models such as ChatGPT cannot reason or explain their decisions transparently, and thus need examination and further reproducibility by others due to their their unpredictable behaviour. Such a system used for medical advice is quite frankly unsatisfactory for physicians and other medical professionals. Just because it worked for someone does not mean it is reliable and works for everyone else. Hence me asking you for a significantly larger sample size and more clinical research papers with ChatGPT being used. > Bro. You're irrational. chatGPT beat 17 doctors in seconds and it doesn't even phase you. But your mom who has likely never taken an IQ test doesn't need one test to verify her intelligence. I'm not the one drawing wild conclusions of reliability over one study and then suggesting that we can replace all doctors with ChatGPT just because of one anecdote showing it was correct for one it is also correct for others, which given its unpredictability that in itself is beyond illogical. You clearly are doing just that. As long as it is a black-box AI model, physicians and medical professionals will always scrutinise its unpredictable nature and reliability rather than you trusting whatever diagnosis it gives as the truth. > Go above the level of scientific rigor. Einstein didn't need sample sizes and statistics to speculate about black holes and general relativity. The verification came later, but the math and nature of reality was formulated and judged correct through common sense I described above. This was way before anything Einstein proposed was verified by "stats". What does Einstein speculating his equations have to do with showing how an AI system that is non-deterministic is also reliable? There are different methods in showing this reliability as I have explained already and you bringing that up is an irrelevant distraction. > Do you not have the ability to bypass statistical data and formulate conclusions without it? Looks like no. The entire point IS conclusively showing reliability which you using ONE paper with a low sample size you used for that as the basis of that claim is laughably insufficient for clinicians to draw an overall conclusion to show how ChatGPT is more reliable than doctors to the point where it is safe for medical advice or completely replacing doctors (which isn't going to happen anyway).
- corethree 3y ago
  > Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of LLMs like ChatGPT tells us that not only it is non-deterministic but it cannot be trusted at all and in that context, it always requires humans to check it and for the case of how reliable it is it needs much more experiments and scientific methods by others to attest that. Where's the science on this I need reams and reams of hard data and several scientific papers to prove this because nothing exists in reality until there's a scientific papers written about it. No I'm kidding don't actually give me science on this. Everything you said is a conclusion easily arrived at with just intuition, experience and common sense. You violate your own principles everytime you make a statement without a citation to a rigorous long winded scientific paper. You realize witnesses are non deterministic too? Yet a judge only needs one to convict a murderer. Non determinism doesn't mean jack in this Convo. You talk about medical professionals laughing in my face do you mean the 17 professionals mentioned in the article who for 10 years failed to diagnose a simple issue? You think anybody cares for them laughing? >What does Einstein speculating his equations have to do with showing how an AI system that is non-deterministic is also reliable? There are different methods in showing this reliability as I have explained already and you bringing that up is an irrelevant distraction. It's relevant. You're just excited thinking the conversation is going in some strange direction of ultimate statistical rigor as the only valid topic of conversation. I bring up Einstein to show you we can talk about well believed and highly esteemed topics that have zero statistical verification and it is valid from the standpoint of scientists and "professionals". I'm saying we don't need that level of rigor to talk about things that involve common sense. Science has weaknesses. The first aspect of it that's weak is it's fucking slow and expensive. The second thing is that a fundamental point of science is that nothing can proven to be true. Statistics does not have the ability for proving anything. In the end you're still speculating with science. >The entire point IS conclusively showing reliability which you using ONE paper with a low sample size you used for that as the basis of that claim is laughably insufficient for clinicians to draw an overall conclusion to show how ChatGPT is more reliable than doctors to the point where it is safe for medical advice or completely replacing doctors (which isn't going to happen anyway). And I'm saying your entire point is wrong. My point is right. You need to follow my point which is this: I can come to very real real conclusions about chatGPT and about LLMs without the need of resorting to science and statistical samples to verify statements in the same way you can make conclusions about your mom and her status as an intelligent being. Also I never said chatGPT is overall more reliable then doctors. I think of it as the precursor to the thing that will replace them. That's a highly reasonable speculation that can be made with zero science needed. The anecdotal data of 17 doctors failing here is valid supporting evidence for that speculation.

rvz 3y ago

> Bro. You are not addressing the dichotomy. Why is it in some instances you need stats and huge sample sizes and in other instances you need only one witness to convict someone for murder? Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of LLMs like ChatGPT tells us that not only it is non-deterministic but it cannot be trusted at all and in that context, it always requires humans to check it and for the case of how reliable it is it needs much more experiments and scientific methods by others to attest that. This is exactly why medical professionals in this case will laugh at your question. For clinicians to use one study as the truth and basis with a low sample of 1 or 30 to show whether a medical device is reliable, especially an AI as a medical device is beyond ridiculous. > All your doing is regurgitating the same bs everyone knows about the nature of science, statistics and sample sizes that are all blindingly obvious to anyone. So why aren't you able to understand that then? Except that your mistake was to begin by comparing the research methods in the legal profession and the medical profession and to use that in this case as a flawed analogy to show that 'reliability' is the same in both of them. Which I'm afraid you only confused yourself. > I am presenting to you a valid dilemma... Which again is irrelevant and besides the point. Everything after that is on the point of what I've already said on transparent explainability, which it is known that LLMs and AI models such as ChatGPT cannot reason or explain their decisions transparently, and thus need examination and further reproducibility by others due to their their unpredictable behaviour. Such a system used for medical advice is quite frankly unsatisfactory for physicians and other medical professionals. Just because it worked for someone does not mean it is reliable and works for everyone else. Hence me asking you for a significantly larger sample size and more clinical research papers with ChatGPT being used. > Bro. You're irrational. chatGPT beat 17 doctors in seconds and it doesn't even phase you. But your mom who has likely never taken an IQ test doesn't need one test to verify her intelligence. I'm not the one drawing wild conclusions of reliability over one study and then suggesting that we can replace all doctors with ChatGPT just because of one anecdote showing it was correct for one it is also correct for others, which given its unpredictability that in itself is beyond illogical. You clearly are doing just that. As long as it is a black-box AI model, physicians and medical professionals will always scrutinise its unpredictable nature and reliability rather than you trusting whatever diagnosis it gives as the truth. > Go above the level of scientific rigor. Einstein didn't need sample sizes and statistics to speculate about black holes and general relativity. The verification came later, but the math and nature of reality was formulated and judged correct through common sense I described above. This was way before anything Einstein proposed was verified by "stats". What does Einstein speculating his equations have to do with showing how an AI system that is non-deterministic is also reliable? There are different methods in showing this reliability as I have explained already and you bringing that up is an irrelevant distraction. > Do you not have the ability to bypass statistical data and formulate conclusions without it? Looks like no. The entire point IS conclusively showing reliability which you using ONE paper with a low sample size you used for that as the basis of that claim is laughably insufficient for clinicians to draw an overall conclusion to show how ChatGPT is more reliable than doctors to the point where it is safe for medical advice or completely replacing doctors (which isn't going to happen anyway).

corethree 3y ago
> Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of LLMs like ChatGPT tells us that not only it is non-deterministic but it cannot be trusted at all and in that context, it always requires humans to check it and for the case of how reliable it is it needs much more experiments and scientific methods by others to attest that. Where's the science on this I need reams and reams of hard data and several scientific papers to prove this because nothing exists in reality until there's a scientific papers written about it. No I'm kidding don't actually give me science on this. Everything you said is a conclusion easily arrived at with just intuition, experience and common sense. You violate your own principles everytime you make a statement without a citation to a rigorous long winded scientific paper. You realize witnesses are non deterministic too? Yet a judge only needs one to convict a murderer. Non determinism doesn't mean jack in this Convo. You talk about medical professionals laughing in my face do you mean the 17 professionals mentioned in the article who for 10 years failed to diagnose a simple issue? You think anybody cares for them laughing? >What does Einstein speculating his equations have to do with showing how an AI system that is non-deterministic is also reliable? There are different methods in showing this reliability as I have explained already and you bringing that up is an irrelevant distraction. It's relevant. You're just excited thinking the conversation is going in some strange direction of ultimate statistical rigor as the only valid topic of conversation. I bring up Einstein to show you we can talk about well believed and highly esteemed topics that have zero statistical verification and it is valid from the standpoint of scientists and "professionals". I'm saying we don't need that level of rigor to talk about things that involve common sense. Science has weaknesses. The first aspect of it that's weak is it's fucking slow and expensive. The second thing is that a fundamental point of science is that nothing can proven to be true. Statistics does not have the ability for proving anything. In the end you're still speculating with science. >The entire point IS conclusively showing reliability which you using ONE paper with a low sample size you used for that as the basis of that claim is laughably insufficient for clinicians to draw an overall conclusion to show how ChatGPT is more reliable than doctors to the point where it is safe for medical advice or completely replacing doctors (which isn't going to happen anyway). And I'm saying your entire point is wrong. My point is right. You need to follow my point which is this: I can come to very real real conclusions about chatGPT and about LLMs without the need of resorting to science and statistical samples to verify statements in the same way you can make conclusions about your mom and her status as an intelligent being. Also I never said chatGPT is overall more reliable then doctors. I think of it as the precursor to the thing that will replace them. That's a highly reasonable speculation that can be made with zero science needed. The anecdotal data of 17 doctors failing here is valid supporting evidence for that speculation.