3 ms·

> I made no claims, I asked no one to prove anything wrong. Your original comment was: > It is an autoregressive sequence predictor/generator. Explain to me h

> I made no claims, I asked no one to prove anything wrong. Your original comment was: > It is an autoregressive sequence predictor/generator. Explain to me how humans are fundamentally different. Which would be interpreted by most reasonable people as you making the claim that humans are autoregressive sequence predictors, and asking people to prove you wrong. I can see how you could say this without intending to make that claim, but most people will interpret this as you making that claim. I do not intend to inflame things or discredit what you are saying, but just to say that if you did not intend to make a claim or ask people to prove you wrong, a different approach would be more successful in the future.

solidasparagus 2y ago
You're right, it was hastily written and I was annoyed. But I generally hold out hope that people can see a claim "A!=B" and a response "A=C, explain how C!=B" and understand that is not the same as claiming "C=B", especially on HN.
- throwanem 2y ago
  I do remain convinced my interpretation was sound, but on review I have to concede it was also quite uncharitable. With all the wildly overheated claims that've been flying around since the advent of these models, I may be myself somewhat overfitted. Granted, in such an environment I feel like a little extra care for epistemic hygiene is warranted. But there was no reason for me to be rude about it.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  I know what you mean. Unfortunately, it's easy for frank and concise language to be taken the wrong way when in written form (and sometimes even verbal form). I wish I didn't have to make qualifiers about my intent on my internet comments, but I often do, to try and make sure that other people take my comment the way I intended it. I think it generally leads to better discussion. I don't blame people for not wanting to talk this way.

solidasparagus 2y ago

You're right, it was hastily written and I was annoyed. But I generally hold out hope that people can see a claim "A!=B" and a response "A=C, explain how C!=B" and understand that is not the same as claiming "C=B", especially on HN.

throwanem 2y ago
I do remain convinced my interpretation was sound, but on review I have to concede it was also quite uncharitable. With all the wildly overheated claims that've been flying around since the advent of these models, I may be myself somewhat overfitted. Granted, in such an environment I feel like a little extra care for epistemic hygiene is warranted. But there was no reason for me to be rude about it.
Vegenoid 2y ago
I know what you mean. Unfortunately, it's easy for frank and concise language to be taken the wrong way when in written form (and sometimes even verbal form). I wish I didn't have to make qualifiers about my intent on my internet comments, but I often do, to try and make sure that other people take my comment the way I intended it. I think it generally leads to better discussion. I don't blame people for not wanting to talk this way.