3 ms·

> But if you don't already understand the code and the concepts, you have no way of knowing if it's actually giving you accurate information or just hallucinati

> But if you don't already understand the code and the concepts, you have no way of knowing if it's actually giving you accurate information or just hallucinating or confabulating. That's the issue right there, I would also argue. And this epistemology thing is at the heart of the whole (AI) post-truth phenomenon.

logicprog 3y ago
Yeah. It's similar to the Gettier problem. You know, people often belittle philosophy as a useless field, and for some fields and subjects they are very right in that (witness all the arguments over finitism or existential inertia), but I think there are a few fields of philosophy that are actually really important. Not because they give answers, but because they give you a larger, richer, and consequently more nuanced tool set with which to approach certain categories of problems that are otherwise difficult to think about, or even notice as problems in the first place, by giving you access to a whole history of thought. In this respect I think philosophy of mind, epistemology, language, semiotics, and to a lesser extent ethics have crucial bearing on the things we see happening nowadays, including the advent of large language models. It's frustrating as someone who's really interested in philosophy to see people discuss these things where long history of philosophical thought is relevant without any real respect for or experience in those fields. It leaves their arguments often reductionist and/or bereft of strong argument and clear reasoning, full of implicit assumptions and ignored details, even when they're right.
- JHonaker 3y ago
  > In this respect I think philosophy of mind, epistemology, language, semiotics, and to a lesser extent ethics have crucial bearing on the things we see happening nowadays Whenever I hit that brushes up against these, I always find myself wishing that introductions to these topics were more easily found. I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that there’s no clear entry point to start learning about the philosophy of mind (or others). It’s like in Math, where you have books like Lang’s “Algebra” which are titled in the most literal way possible. It is simultaneously exactly what’s in the book, but woefully inappropriate for people who don’t already know what it is. Do you have any recommendations?
  - logicprog 3y ago
    Unfortunately I'm in the rather unhelpful position (which I suspect is the position most philosophers also find themselves in, hence producing the problem you've so astutely pointed out) of not really remembering how I got into philosophy. I took a few college courses, read the textbooks, then started Googling the names of philosophers that seemed interesting and reading primary or secondary sources about their ideas. So all I can really offer is the sort of textbooks I began with, because I do think I found their format uniquely helpful for getting me into the thick of interesting things quickly: namely, primary source anthology textbooks!!! These are great :D I love them to pieces and always intend to read more. Basically, try to find books that are composed entirely of the juicy sections of primary sources on a given subject from all sorts of different points of view, preferably with some footnotes and introductions to give proper context. Not handbooks or something where it's content by many authors, but written for the occasion — stuff made of primary sources. Things like this[0], although I haven't read that particular specimen since most of the ones I read to get into philosophy were bespoke ones made by my professors. Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is indispensable for getting a real sense for the philosophical debate about any given topic — the arguments back and forth in all their minutae. Also have Wikipedia handy for definitions of technical jargon (always read the "criticism" or "responses" sections! and also remember Wikipedia is often incomplete). In my opinion then the general point is that to become familiar with, and even good at thinking and arguing about, even rather deep philosophy, you don't necessarily need to sit down and munch through a dense and possibly dull primary source or didactic textbook from cover to cover unless you want to. Engaging with primary sources is good, but doing so when and where it seems interesting, on your own terms, in bite sized chunks, with secondary sources to supplement and broaden your horizons, is more likely to avoid burnout and help you digest things, so it's better in the end. Also, I highly recommend Philosophical Investigations, it's very good and reasonably accessible from what I've read of it. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Philosophy-Anthology-P-Martinich/dp/1444335707 https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Philosophy-Anthology-P-Marti...
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    > Do you have any recommendations? Plenty, but it's complicated. I've been thinking about these ideas a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38427055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38427055

logicprog 3y ago

Yeah. It's similar to the Gettier problem. You know, people often belittle philosophy as a useless field, and for some fields and subjects they are very right in that (witness all the arguments over finitism or existential inertia), but I think there are a few fields of philosophy that are actually really important. Not because they give answers, but because they give you a larger, richer, and consequently more nuanced tool set with which to approach certain categories of problems that are otherwise difficult to think about, or even notice as problems in the first place, by giving you access to a whole history of thought. In this respect I think philosophy of mind, epistemology, language, semiotics, and to a lesser extent ethics have crucial bearing on the things we see happening nowadays, including the advent of large language models. It's frustrating as someone who's really interested in philosophy to see people discuss these things where long history of philosophical thought is relevant without any real respect for or experience in those fields. It leaves their arguments often reductionist and/or bereft of strong argument and clear reasoning, full of implicit assumptions and ignored details, even when they're right.

JHonaker 3y ago
> In this respect I think philosophy of mind, epistemology, language, semiotics, and to a lesser extent ethics have crucial bearing on the things we see happening nowadays Whenever I hit that brushes up against these, I always find myself wishing that introductions to these topics were more easily found. I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that there’s no clear entry point to start learning about the philosophy of mind (or others). It’s like in Math, where you have books like Lang’s “Algebra” which are titled in the most literal way possible. It is simultaneously exactly what’s in the book, but woefully inappropriate for people who don’t already know what it is. Do you have any recommendations?
- logicprog 3y ago
  Unfortunately I'm in the rather unhelpful position (which I suspect is the position most philosophers also find themselves in, hence producing the problem you've so astutely pointed out) of not really remembering how I got into philosophy. I took a few college courses, read the textbooks, then started Googling the names of philosophers that seemed interesting and reading primary or secondary sources about their ideas. So all I can really offer is the sort of textbooks I began with, because I do think I found their format uniquely helpful for getting me into the thick of interesting things quickly: namely, primary source anthology textbooks!!! These are great :D I love them to pieces and always intend to read more. Basically, try to find books that are composed entirely of the juicy sections of primary sources on a given subject from all sorts of different points of view, preferably with some footnotes and introductions to give proper context. Not handbooks or something where it's content by many authors, but written for the occasion — stuff made of primary sources. Things like this[0], although I haven't read that particular specimen since most of the ones I read to get into philosophy were bespoke ones made by my professors. Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is indispensable for getting a real sense for the philosophical debate about any given topic — the arguments back and forth in all their minutae. Also have Wikipedia handy for definitions of technical jargon (always read the "criticism" or "responses" sections! and also remember Wikipedia is often incomplete). In my opinion then the general point is that to become familiar with, and even good at thinking and arguing about, even rather deep philosophy, you don't necessarily need to sit down and munch through a dense and possibly dull primary source or didactic textbook from cover to cover unless you want to. Engaging with primary sources is good, but doing so when and where it seems interesting, on your own terms, in bite sized chunks, with secondary sources to supplement and broaden your horizons, is more likely to avoid burnout and help you digest things, so it's better in the end. Also, I highly recommend Philosophical Investigations, it's very good and reasonably accessible from what I've read of it. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Philosophy-Anthology-P-Martinich/dp/1444335707 https://www.amazon.com/Analytic-Philosophy-Anthology-P-Marti...
- jruohonen 3y ago
  > Do you have any recommendations? Plenty, but it's complicated. I've been thinking about these ideas a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38427055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38427055