4 ms·

I don’t think someone should use GPT this way but this snark isn’t productive. It was always lazy shorthand for “we don’t fully understand what’s going on but

I don’t think someone should use GPT this way but this snark isn’t productive. It was always lazy shorthand for “we don’t fully understand what’s going on but in general you’re probably better off by trusting the current scientific consensus,” which is a consistently good approach across time and space even if the consensus turns out to be wrong. And for cases where there isn’t broad consensus, like the etiology of Long COVID, then obviously “trust the experts” is an almost semantically meaningless statement anyway. This is not analogous to climate change or vaccines or other areas where you hear this (again, lazy) phrase a lot.

bheadmaster 2y ago
There have been many scenarios in which there wasn't broad concensus, but the lazy phrase "trust the experts" has been used. Ironically, COVID vaccines when they were first developed were one of those scenarios.
- notahacker 2y ago
  In lieu of trusting experts, what would you propose to have done in that situation? Get everyone to conduct their own double blind trials? Apportion equal weight to the arguments of people arguing the vaccines contained microchips or autism?
  - bheadmaster 2y ago
    I am not proposing anything. I am simply pointing out the hypocricy of trusting the experts when it fits you, and discarding them when it doesn't.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      Frankly whilst ChatGPT isn't something I'd trust myself because it's a just big dumb model that fills in gaps with statistically optimal continuations that can be completely untrue, if it works, it works by summarising the consensus of the experts (with controversial perspectives heavily RLHF-ed out, especially around COVID...) with broader and deeper specific knowledge than general medical practitioners offering fewer suggestions, so I'm not convinced consulting it reflects a desire to discard expert consensus...
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Not really. There was a randomized controlled trial of more than thirty thousand people backing the emergency approval of the Moderna vaccine. The results were obscenely strong. So no, not really. RCTs of that scale and with those strong of results build consensus pretty quickly, which is why there was (and remains) such strong consensus, which is why you feel like "trust the experts" was such a cudgel. These arguments are always fun because they resolve to, "I'm mad because I wasn't trusted with subtle arguments and statistical nuance" immediately followed by a demonstrated inability to grasp exactly those things. Of course if you really wanted the subtle arguments and statistical nuance, you could've looked at the study results themselves. But you almost certainly didn't and most people wouldn't, ergo "trust the experts" who do those things is often very reasonable advice.

bheadmaster 2y ago

There have been many scenarios in which there wasn't broad concensus, but the lazy phrase "trust the experts" has been used. Ironically, COVID vaccines when they were first developed were one of those scenarios.

notahacker 2y ago
In lieu of trusting experts, what would you propose to have done in that situation? Get everyone to conduct their own double blind trials? Apportion equal weight to the arguments of people arguing the vaccines contained microchips or autism?
- bheadmaster 2y ago
  I am not proposing anything. I am simply pointing out the hypocricy of trusting the experts when it fits you, and discarding them when it doesn't.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    Frankly whilst ChatGPT isn't something I'd trust myself because it's a just big dumb model that fills in gaps with statistically optimal continuations that can be completely untrue, if it works, it works by summarising the consensus of the experts (with controversial perspectives heavily RLHF-ed out, especially around COVID...) with broader and deeper specific knowledge than general medical practitioners offering fewer suggestions, so I'm not convinced consulting it reflects a desire to discard expert consensus...
llamaimperative 2y ago
Not really. There was a randomized controlled trial of more than thirty thousand people backing the emergency approval of the Moderna vaccine. The results were obscenely strong. So no, not really. RCTs of that scale and with those strong of results build consensus pretty quickly, which is why there was (and remains) such strong consensus, which is why you feel like "trust the experts" was such a cudgel. These arguments are always fun because they resolve to, "I'm mad because I wasn't trusted with subtle arguments and statistical nuance" immediately followed by a demonstrated inability to grasp exactly those things. Of course if you really wanted the subtle arguments and statistical nuance, you could've looked at the study results themselves. But you almost certainly didn't and most people wouldn't, ergo "trust the experts" who do those things is often very reasonable advice.