3 ms·

So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind". How can I be outside of the b

by cauch 3y ago

So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind". How can I be outside of the bubble if the people around me are all in the bubble. If I'm outside of the bubble, I will see people who work in solar and wind AND people who work in nuclear. And according to you, people in nuclear will not act like people in solar and wind, so the overall observation would not be that I see that solar and wind is considered as a very valid solution, because I will see people saying it's not a valid solution. You even say: > given your sector, could it be a bubble? And you also say, I quote again > Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work. So, how does it work? How is that possible that, according to you now, you are not assuming that I'm working in solar and wind and not in nuclear, and at the same time, assuming that I cannot work in nuclear because, then, I will see people saying that solar and wind is not a very valid solution? As for what I've said next, it's the pot calling the kettle black: even right now, you need a tortuous gymnastic to twist your words so we may slightly imagine a version in which you did not assume anything about me. As for what I've imagined, the rest of the discussion just make me think I was 100% right. > how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. 1) you say people working in wind and solar may be biased and think of it as a very valid solution 2) you say people working in nuclear may be biased and think of it as very not a valid solution 3) THE ONLY LOGIC POSSIBILITY FOR ME TO SAY I ONLY SEE IT BEING CONSIDERED AS A VERY VALID SOLUTION IS THAT I ONLY SEE PEOPLE WORKING IN WIND AND SOLAR. There is absolutely no other logical solution. (oh, and you would notice that I did not say "I see some people considering it as a very valid solution", which means I would also see others not considering it as a very valid solution. I'm saying it's a broad consensus to the point that this solution is very generally taken seriously. If you think I was saying "I see _some_ people", who is unable to read what the other has written?)

palata 3y ago
Oh come on, it has to be a joke. You just don't understand anything, do you? I would ask if you are an LLM, but my experience with LLMs is that they understand natural languages better. > So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because Last time: I asked if what you described (i.e. a large consensus for an idea) could be a bubble. I A-S-K-E-D. That's what the question mark means (this is a question mark: "?"). >> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" > Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. You and I seem to have a very different view of what the word "logic" means.
- cauch 3y ago
  My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider that and to even ask. You lecture me (badly) on "what I should have written". Well, there are tons of things that you could have written. I've even said it before, I quote: > Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain. But you did not, you just "asked innocently" a question that only someone with an idea already in mind would ask. > I A-S-K-E-D What if I tell you "how old are you?" (and I will: "you're so stupid you could be a LLM" ... seriously? how old are you?). Does it mean that I did not assume anything about you? After all, I've just asked a question, it's the proof I'm not biased towards a specific hypothesis, no? Surely, by your own logic, asking "how old are you" is not implying that I consider you not very sophisticated, you should understand "maybe they think I'm young, but maybe they think I'm old and wise, they don't assume anything, as proven by the fact that they are asking a question". You could have said "people in nuclear will down-play the importance on renewables, you are saying that around you, renewables are considered as a very valid solution, but are you sure renewables are not in fact a very very valid solution, because maybe you are in a bubble dominated by people working in nuclear". Why not having asked that? You can even take more extreme examples where a person asked a foreigner person if their parents are apes, or bankers/moneylenders, or jihadists? If this person is asking an arab-looking person, why this person is, what a chance, asking if their parents are jihadists but not if their parents are bankers or part of the mafia? Do you really think the person is not assuming anything? After all, this person asked the question, so it's the proof they don't assume, right? You see, language is a tad more complex than just LLM and out-of-context word-by-word interpretation, and apparently, I understand that. I don't know (and don't care) about LLM, but, you, you certainly don't.
  - palata 3y ago
    Natural languages are ambiguous indeed. But it does not mean that you can pick any interpretation you like and "demonstrate" anything you want from it. I won't address the rest, it makes no sense to me.
    - 3y ago

by cauch 3y ago

palata 3y ago

Oh come on, it has to be a joke. You just don't understand anything, do you? I would ask if you are an LLM, but my experience with LLMs is that they understand natural languages better. > So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because Last time: I asked if what you described (i.e. a large consensus for an idea) could be a bubble. I A-S-K-E-D. That's what the question mark means (this is a question mark: "?"). >> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" > Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that. You and I seem to have a very different view of what the word "logic" means.

cauch 3y ago
My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider that and to even ask. You lecture me (badly) on "what I should have written". Well, there are tons of things that you could have written. I've even said it before, I quote: > Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain. But you did not, you just "asked innocently" a question that only someone with an idea already in mind would ask. > I A-S-K-E-D What if I tell you "how old are you?" (and I will: "you're so stupid you could be a LLM" ... seriously? how old are you?). Does it mean that I did not assume anything about you? After all, I've just asked a question, it's the proof I'm not biased towards a specific hypothesis, no? Surely, by your own logic, asking "how old are you" is not implying that I consider you not very sophisticated, you should understand "maybe they think I'm young, but maybe they think I'm old and wise, they don't assume anything, as proven by the fact that they are asking a question". You could have said "people in nuclear will down-play the importance on renewables, you are saying that around you, renewables are considered as a very valid solution, but are you sure renewables are not in fact a very very valid solution, because maybe you are in a bubble dominated by people working in nuclear". Why not having asked that? You can even take more extreme examples where a person asked a foreigner person if their parents are apes, or bankers/moneylenders, or jihadists? If this person is asking an arab-looking person, why this person is, what a chance, asking if their parents are jihadists but not if their parents are bankers or part of the mafia? Do you really think the person is not assuming anything? After all, this person asked the question, so it's the proof they don't assume, right? You see, language is a tad more complex than just LLM and out-of-context word-by-word interpretation, and apparently, I understand that. I don't know (and don't care) about LLM, but, you, you certainly don't.
- palata 3y ago
  Natural languages are ambiguous indeed. But it does not mean that you can pick any interpretation you like and "demonstrate" anything you want from it. I won't address the rest, it makes no sense to me.
  - 3y ago