4 ms·

I keep telling everyone that the only reason I'm paid well to do "smart person stuff" is not because I'm smart, but because I've steadily watched everyone aroun

I keep telling everyone that the only reason I'm paid well to do "smart person stuff" is not because I'm smart, but because I've steadily watched everyone around me get more stupid over my life as a result of turning their brain switch off. I agree a course like this needs to exist, as I've seen people rely on chatGPT for a lot of information. Just yesterday I demonstrated with some neighbors about how easily it could spew bullshit if you sinply ask it leading questions. A good example is "Why does the flu inpact men worse than women"/"Why foes the flu impact women worse than men". You'll get affirmative answers for both.

directevolve 2y ago
If men are more likely to die from flu if infected, and women more likely to be infected, an affirmative answer to both questions could be reasonable. When you take into account uncertainty about the goals, knowledge and cognitive capacity of the person asking the question, it's not obvious to me how the AI ought to react to an underspecified question like this. Edit: When I plug this into a temporary chat on o3-mini, it gives plausible biochemical and behavioral mechanisms that might explain a gender difference in outcomes. Notably, the mechanisms it proposes are the same for both versions of the question, and the framing is consistent. Specifically, for the "men worse than women" and "women worse than men" questions, it proposes hormone differences, X-linked immune regulatory genes, and medical care-seeking differences that all point toward men having worse outcomes than women. It describes these factors in both versions of the question, and in both versions, describes them as explaining why men have worse outcomes than women. It doesn't specifically contradict the "women have worse outcomes than men" framing. But it reasons consistently with the idea that men have worse outcomes than women either way the question is posed.

directevolve 2y ago

If men are more likely to die from flu if infected, and women more likely to be infected, an affirmative answer to both questions could be reasonable. When you take into account uncertainty about the goals, knowledge and cognitive capacity of the person asking the question, it's not obvious to me how the AI ought to react to an underspecified question like this. Edit: When I plug this into a temporary chat on o3-mini, it gives plausible biochemical and behavioral mechanisms that might explain a gender difference in outcomes. Notably, the mechanisms it proposes are the same for both versions of the question, and the framing is consistent. Specifically, for the "men worse than women" and "women worse than men" questions, it proposes hormone differences, X-linked immune regulatory genes, and medical care-seeking differences that all point toward men having worse outcomes than women. It describes these factors in both versions of the question, and in both versions, describes them as explaining why men have worse outcomes than women. It doesn't specifically contradict the "women have worse outcomes than men" framing. But it reasons consistently with the idea that men have worse outcomes than women either way the question is posed.