4 ms·

It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself. (I realize this might be a weak point for many people.)

by timr 1y ago

montagg 1y ago
The “do your own research” types end up with some of the biggest groupthink I’ve ever seen though.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Sure, they were probably picking from the top 10 results on Google. Now with AI, we've got one very effective "I'm feeling lucky" button.
  - nullc 1y ago
    It's worse because they're often more confident in the AI output than they ever were of the google results, and the results are not-infrequently-enough so bad that no human would have made that error. When they do doubt, they can ask, and the AI will often defend its dumb position -- especially when they explicitly ask it to counter the rebuttal they received. Skepticism also seems to be reduced because we're armored against people telling us lies in their own self interest and against ours, while AI will make stuff up that benefits no one. (And even where it could benefit someone, people assume the AI isn't trying to benefit itself).
- timr 1y ago
  The “listen to the experts” types are the same thing, but the opposite pole. Neither qualifies as thinking for yourself.
  - Swenrekcah 1y ago
    Sure, but one of those is outsourcing their judgement to a panel of actual experts and the other to a panel of internet personalities
    - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
      It always seemed odd how willing people are to defer to internet randos who are obviously out of their depth. Of course, you also have to identify which experts are trustworthy. This is an important skill to have. A non-expert must rely on at least two things to do this. The first are external signals, like financial associations and a record of making unpopular criticisms (but without being a contrarian or aiming for sensationalism), as well as reputational factors (not popularity, but a reputation for making strong cases). The second is the basic coherence of their claims. If they make remarks that contradict basic reality, then this is not a good sign. And of course, you have to be prudential and recognize your own limits. These are probabilistic, naturally, and there is an expected divergence of opinion here, even between what you thought yesterday and what you think today.
    - timr 1y ago
      Look, I think I made my only point in the parent comment, but I just want to emphasize that "a panel of actual experts" is rarely the compliment that you seem to think it is. The past few years have been a veritable parade of experts saying inaccurate things, and/or being proven hilariously wrong in a variety of domains. I'm not saying that this isn't a hard problem -- it is -- but the fact is that "expert" is not a get-out-of-thinking-free card. It is, at best, a slightly higher weighted input amongst all others.
      - xboxnolifes 1y ago
        Yeah, anyone working in any field for some amount of time is an "expert" in that field. Yet, finding 2 software engineers with differing opinions on a topic is trivial. Finding 1 making provably wrong statements on a topic is nearly as easy. They hold more weight than the average person, but it doesn't make them right by default.
      - anon-3988 1y ago
        Whatever it is, if I ever need to get a lobotomy, I will refer to this so called "panel of actual experts". Thank you very much.
  - knowaveragejoe 1y ago
    It was never "always listen to the experts", but that's the strawman given by the contrarians who have decided we need to throw out all expertise.
    - guappa 1y ago
      I've absolutely heard a published psychologist claim at a "science festival" that anyone lending any credit to any conspiracy theory is an uneducated idiot (but it's not their fault). She put flat earth, reptilians and queen had diana killed on the same level. I guess gladio too? I mean kings historically have had lots of people killed. Certainly I can't know if that's what happened, but it's at least possible (unlike flat earth). Also she didn't take questions from the audience, in the spirit of science.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
nullc 1y ago
> It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself. Uh oh... More seriously, if you have non-techie (or less techie) friends or family using ChatGPT please ask to see their conversations. You're likely to be shocked by at a least few of them... many people really don't understand what these tools are and are using them in crazy and damaging ways. For example, one friends brother in law has his ChatGPT telling him about varrious penny stocks and obscure cryptocurrencies and promising him 10000x returns, which he absolutely believes and is making investments based on. Other people are allowing ChatGPT to convince them that God has chosen to speak to them through ChatGPT and is commanding them to do all sorts of nonsense. The commercial LLMs work well enough that people who don't know how they work are frequently bamboozled. Consider how much your own skepticism of the output comes from cases where it was confidently but objectively wrong and what happens to someone who never uses it on something where objective correctness can be easily judged.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  Here's a great example of an intelligent person learning this lesson (and, thankfully, sharing it in a very public and effective way): https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/diabolus-ex-machina https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/diabolus-ex-machina
  - nullc 1y ago
    Great link. It might be something I could share to wake some other people up. I dunno how tool use is setup in chat interface as I've only used the API, but I doubt there was ever a request to any of the urls and the author could have just as easily added https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/that-time-i-won-the-lottery https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/that-time-i-won-the-l... or any other made up URL and it would have waxed poetic about that one too.
beanshadow 1y ago
Differing individuals with similarly shaped axiomatic structures will discover similar theorems. Some people that are members of ideologies believe they are thinking just for themselves. It's strong for members of a community to think alike. On the other hand, some people like to search in todash meme space for a useful idea or strategy in the rough. Problem is this treasure hunter strategy is only available to those with resources to try lots of untested and potentially quite harmful ideas.

It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself. (I realize this might be a weak point for many people.)

by timr 1y ago

It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself. (I realize this might be a weak point for many people.)

montagg 1y ago

The “do your own research” types end up with some of the biggest groupthink I’ve ever seen though.

chrisco255 1y ago
Sure, they were probably picking from the top 10 results on Google. Now with AI, we've got one very effective "I'm feeling lucky" button.
- nullc 1y ago
  It's worse because they're often more confident in the AI output than they ever were of the google results, and the results are not-infrequently-enough so bad that no human would have made that error. When they do doubt, they can ask, and the AI will often defend its dumb position -- especially when they explicitly ask it to counter the rebuttal they received. Skepticism also seems to be reduced because we're armored against people telling us lies in their own self interest and against ours, while AI will make stuff up that benefits no one. (And even where it could benefit someone, people assume the AI isn't trying to benefit itself).
timr 1y ago
The “listen to the experts” types are the same thing, but the opposite pole. Neither qualifies as thinking for yourself.
- Swenrekcah 1y ago
  Sure, but one of those is outsourcing their judgement to a panel of actual experts and the other to a panel of internet personalities
  - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
    It always seemed odd how willing people are to defer to internet randos who are obviously out of their depth. Of course, you also have to identify which experts are trustworthy. This is an important skill to have. A non-expert must rely on at least two things to do this. The first are external signals, like financial associations and a record of making unpopular criticisms (but without being a contrarian or aiming for sensationalism), as well as reputational factors (not popularity, but a reputation for making strong cases). The second is the basic coherence of their claims. If they make remarks that contradict basic reality, then this is not a good sign. And of course, you have to be prudential and recognize your own limits. These are probabilistic, naturally, and there is an expected divergence of opinion here, even between what you thought yesterday and what you think today.
  - timr 1y ago
    Look, I think I made my only point in the parent comment, but I just want to emphasize that "a panel of actual experts" is rarely the compliment that you seem to think it is. The past few years have been a veritable parade of experts saying inaccurate things, and/or being proven hilariously wrong in a variety of domains. I'm not saying that this isn't a hard problem -- it is -- but the fact is that "expert" is not a get-out-of-thinking-free card. It is, at best, a slightly higher weighted input amongst all others.
    - xboxnolifes 1y ago
      Yeah, anyone working in any field for some amount of time is an "expert" in that field. Yet, finding 2 software engineers with differing opinions on a topic is trivial. Finding 1 making provably wrong statements on a topic is nearly as easy. They hold more weight than the average person, but it doesn't make them right by default.
    - anon-3988 1y ago
      Whatever it is, if I ever need to get a lobotomy, I will refer to this so called "panel of actual experts". Thank you very much.
- knowaveragejoe 1y ago
  It was never "always listen to the experts", but that's the strawman given by the contrarians who have decided we need to throw out all expertise.
  - guappa 1y ago
    I've absolutely heard a published psychologist claim at a "science festival" that anyone lending any credit to any conspiracy theory is an uneducated idiot (but it's not their fault). She put flat earth, reptilians and queen had diana killed on the same level. I guess gladio too? I mean kings historically have had lots of people killed. Certainly I can't know if that's what happened, but it's at least possible (unlike flat earth). Also she didn't take questions from the audience, in the spirit of science.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

nullc 1y ago

> It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself. Uh oh... More seriously, if you have non-techie (or less techie) friends or family using ChatGPT please ask to see their conversations. You're likely to be shocked by at a least few of them... many people really don't understand what these tools are and are using them in crazy and damaging ways. For example, one friends brother in law has his ChatGPT telling him about varrious penny stocks and obscure cryptocurrencies and promising him 10000x returns, which he absolutely believes and is making investments based on. Other people are allowing ChatGPT to convince them that God has chosen to speak to them through ChatGPT and is commanding them to do all sorts of nonsense. The commercial LLMs work well enough that people who don't know how they work are frequently bamboozled. Consider how much your own skepticism of the output comes from cases where it was confidently but objectively wrong and what happens to someone who never uses it on something where objective correctness can be easily judged.

chrisweekly 1y ago
Here's a great example of an intelligent person learning this lesson (and, thankfully, sharing it in a very public and effective way): https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/diabolus-ex-machina https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/diabolus-ex-machina
- nullc 1y ago
  Great link. It might be something I could share to wake some other people up. I dunno how tool use is setup in chat interface as I've only used the API, but I doubt there was ever a request to any of the urls and the author could have just as easily added https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/that-time-i-won-the-lottery https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/that-time-i-won-the-l... or any other made up URL and it would have waxed poetic about that one too.

beanshadow 1y ago

Differing individuals with similarly shaped axiomatic structures will discover similar theorems. Some people that are members of ideologies believe they are thinking just for themselves. It's strong for members of a community to think alike. On the other hand, some people like to search in todash meme space for a useful idea or strategy in the rough. Problem is this treasure hunter strategy is only available to those with resources to try lots of untested and potentially quite harmful ideas.