4 ms·

> You can easily see this because it can be flipped around easily - you made a claim that they are being changed, even every few weeks! Should it really be on m

> You can easily see this because it can be flipped around easily - you made a claim that they are being changed, even every few weeks! Should it really be on me to show that your very specific claim is false? Wait a minute? The author of such a paper makes a claim about some observation that's based on the assumption that the studied model is defined in a way. I am disputing that claim since no evidence has been shown that it is defined because no definition has been given. If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. That's not called science. That's called authority.

IanCal 3y ago
> I am disputing that claim You are entirely within your rights to say that the authors have assumed that openai is not lying about their models. They've probably also assumed that other paper authors are not lying in their papers. You then say however: > GPT is a closed source/weights, proprietary product that changes every couple of weeks or so. And when I ask for evidence of this very specific claim, you turn around and say the burden is on me to show that you're lying. That is what is butchering the concept of burden of proof. > If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. Absolutely not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- starbugs 3y ago
  Look, the burden of proof in a scientific paper is on the authors. Not on me. A company with a proprietary product that says something is not acceptable evidence in a scientific context. No need to allege that anyone is lying. Lying is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the research is falsifiable. It cannot be falsifiable if you don't know what the actual model is at a given point in time.

IanCal 3y ago

> I am disputing that claim You are entirely within your rights to say that the authors have assumed that openai is not lying about their models. They've probably also assumed that other paper authors are not lying in their papers. You then say however: > GPT is a closed source/weights, proprietary product that changes every couple of weeks or so. And when I ask for evidence of this very specific claim, you turn around and say the burden is on me to show that you're lying. That is what is butchering the concept of burden of proof. > If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. Absolutely not.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
starbugs 3y ago
Look, the burden of proof in a scientific paper is on the authors. Not on me. A company with a proprietary product that says something is not acceptable evidence in a scientific context. No need to allege that anyone is lying. Lying is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the research is falsifiable. It cannot be falsifiable if you don't know what the actual model is at a given point in time.