4 ms·

It if funny to phrase it like that as if you weren't one of the people in that thread arguing against those skeptical people pointing out issues with the accusa

by slg 1y ago

It if funny to phrase it like that as if you weren't one of the people in that thread arguing against those skeptical people pointing out issues with the accusations. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44859991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44859991

AlotOfReading 1y ago
Anything using Ockham's razor is a statement about what's more likely when you don't know the truth. Those priors were obviously wrong. I also said we'd find out shortly if it was faked, and now we're here. Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information?
- slg 1y ago
  >Those priors were obviously wrong. You're doing it again here with the passive voice. You weren't wrong, it was "Ockham's razor" and "those priors" that were wrong. >Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information? Your responses here show that you aren't actually doing that. You aren't taking any responsibility for your prior incorrect assumptions and therefore you are likely to continue making similar wrong assumptions in the future. How can you learn from this experience if you can't admit that you did anything wrong?
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    I don't know what you want from me. Yes, my speculation on incomplete information was wrong. That's obvious to anyone who can read. I haven't hidden it, I haven't said I was ever correct, and even in that thread I explicitly said there are two possibilities and here's the one I find more likely. Yet you're acting like I kicked a puppy and need to apologize for my moral failings. Chill, it's not a big deal. I'll probably be wrong about something else in the future too. All I can do is update my understanding and try not to make the same mistakes going forward.
    - slg 1y ago
      >I don't know what you want from me. All I want from you is to... >update my understanding and try not to make the same mistakes going forward. The first step in that process is examining your prior mistakes so you know what not to repeat. Your comments have shown an unwillingness to do that work. You're treating this as a mistake that you just happened to fall into through no fault of your own and not a mistake caused by your own actions.
      - randysalami 1y ago
        It’s a bit like an LLM or any model output. I’m wrong, so what? It will happen again. Maybe humans aren’t so different after all.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - FreakLegion 1y ago
        Being wrong and making a mistake are very different things. A weather forecaster, for example, can be wrong about the weather without making a mistake in forecasting it.
        slg 1y ago
        Yes, that was the point being made. Immediately believing the authenticity of this video was not just wrong, but also a mistake. Anyone who believed it initially should take this as a lesson to learn to recalibrate their levels of naïveté/skepticism when it comes to random social media posts.
        FreakLegion 1y ago
        It's the opposite of the point you want to make. This is obvious if you simplify the example to something like flipping a biased coin. If the coin will come up heads 50-eps% of the time, and tails 50+eps% of the time, then the correct prediction is tails. Tails will often be the wrong prediction, but is still the correct prediction to make. The outcome of this one event simply doesn't imply anything about the correctness of AlotOfReading's model. The model might actually be mistaken, but that's not an argument you've made.
- freetime2 1y ago
  Sorry for piling on here. To be clear, I don't think you've done anything terrible that requires an apology, and I think it's admirable that you are here after the hoax was debunked and willing to admit you were wrong and discuss it openly. It's just interesting (and somewhat rare on HN) to be able to go back and pick apart your comment less than 24 hours later with perfect hindsight. You comment was: > What's the alternative here? A rapper went to the effort to publish an MV, then figured out how to display a fake disabled message in the vehicle, then faked a C&D, knowing that these actions would give Tesla a very legitimate claim against them? > Ockham's razor is not favorable to the alternative. I think the issue is that you greatly underestimated how far people are willing to go for likes. There are billions of people online, and while most would not bother to do what you said, some of them are indeed willing to go to incredible lengths for views. The YouTuber who intentionally crashed his plane, for example [1]. This stunt with the Cybertruck feels relatively low-effort by comparison. Or as my favorite response to your comment summed it up: > "You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?" I don't typically like sarcasm in a thoughtful discussion, but in this case it felt warranted. You also failed to apply Occam's razor to the other side, and consider the legal and reputational risks that Tesla would face by remotely disabling someone's car while they were driving on the expressway. Yes, Musk has done brash things before, which certainly increases the believability of this hoax. But this would be new ground even for Musk. And you have to weigh Musk's capacity for doing brash things against the entire internet's capacity for generating fake news and hoaxes. You probably should have known better than try and apply Occam's razor to determine the likelihood that an instagram post is a hoax. There are just too many irrational people out there (and rational people acting in bad faith) for Occam's razor to be applicable. And the fact that you were able to overlook the overwhelming number of counterexamples to your application of Occam's razor suggests to me that there may have been some confirmation bias at play. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67622247 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67622247

by slg 1y ago

AlotOfReading 1y ago

Anything using Ockham's razor is a statement about what's more likely when you don't know the truth. Those priors were obviously wrong. I also said we'd find out shortly if it was faked, and now we're here. Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information?

slg 1y ago
>Those priors were obviously wrong. You're doing it again here with the passive voice. You weren't wrong, it was "Ockham's razor" and "those priors" that were wrong. >Do you think I shouldn't update my understanding based on new information? Your responses here show that you aren't actually doing that. You aren't taking any responsibility for your prior incorrect assumptions and therefore you are likely to continue making similar wrong assumptions in the future. How can you learn from this experience if you can't admit that you did anything wrong?
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  I don't know what you want from me. Yes, my speculation on incomplete information was wrong. That's obvious to anyone who can read. I haven't hidden it, I haven't said I was ever correct, and even in that thread I explicitly said there are two possibilities and here's the one I find more likely. Yet you're acting like I kicked a puppy and need to apologize for my moral failings. Chill, it's not a big deal. I'll probably be wrong about something else in the future too. All I can do is update my understanding and try not to make the same mistakes going forward.
  - slg 1y ago
    >I don't know what you want from me. All I want from you is to... >update my understanding and try not to make the same mistakes going forward. The first step in that process is examining your prior mistakes so you know what not to repeat. Your comments have shown an unwillingness to do that work. You're treating this as a mistake that you just happened to fall into through no fault of your own and not a mistake caused by your own actions.
    - randysalami 1y ago
      It’s a bit like an LLM or any model output. I’m wrong, so what? It will happen again. Maybe humans aren’t so different after all.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - FreakLegion 1y ago
      Being wrong and making a mistake are very different things. A weather forecaster, for example, can be wrong about the weather without making a mistake in forecasting it.
      - slg 1y ago
        Yes, that was the point being made. Immediately believing the authenticity of this video was not just wrong, but also a mistake. Anyone who believed it initially should take this as a lesson to learn to recalibrate their levels of naïveté/skepticism when it comes to random social media posts.
        FreakLegion 1y ago
        It's the opposite of the point you want to make. This is obvious if you simplify the example to something like flipping a biased coin. If the coin will come up heads 50-eps% of the time, and tails 50+eps% of the time, then the correct prediction is tails. Tails will often be the wrong prediction, but is still the correct prediction to make. The outcome of this one event simply doesn't imply anything about the correctness of AlotOfReading's model. The model might actually be mistaken, but that's not an argument you've made.
freetime2 1y ago
Sorry for piling on here. To be clear, I don't think you've done anything terrible that requires an apology, and I think it's admirable that you are here after the hoax was debunked and willing to admit you were wrong and discuss it openly. It's just interesting (and somewhat rare on HN) to be able to go back and pick apart your comment less than 24 hours later with perfect hindsight. You comment was: > What's the alternative here? A rapper went to the effort to publish an MV, then figured out how to display a fake disabled message in the vehicle, then faked a C&D, knowing that these actions would give Tesla a very legitimate claim against them? > Ockham's razor is not favorable to the alternative. I think the issue is that you greatly underestimated how far people are willing to go for likes. There are billions of people online, and while most would not bother to do what you said, some of them are indeed willing to go to incredible lengths for views. The YouTuber who intentionally crashed his plane, for example [1]. This stunt with the Cybertruck feels relatively low-effort by comparison. Or as my favorite response to your comment summed it up: > "You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?" I don't typically like sarcasm in a thoughtful discussion, but in this case it felt warranted. You also failed to apply Occam's razor to the other side, and consider the legal and reputational risks that Tesla would face by remotely disabling someone's car while they were driving on the expressway. Yes, Musk has done brash things before, which certainly increases the believability of this hoax. But this would be new ground even for Musk. And you have to weigh Musk's capacity for doing brash things against the entire internet's capacity for generating fake news and hoaxes. You probably should have known better than try and apply Occam's razor to determine the likelihood that an instagram post is a hoax. There are just too many irrational people out there (and rational people acting in bad faith) for Occam's razor to be applicable. And the fact that you were able to overlook the overwhelming number of counterexamples to your application of Occam's razor suggests to me that there may have been some confirmation bias at play. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67622247 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67622247