4 ms·

>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 ste

by 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.
    - slg 1y ago
      >The outcome of this one event simply doesn't imply anything about the correctness of AlotOfReading's model. How many times would you have to burn your hand on a hot stove before you can conclude that touching it will result in a burn?
      - FreakLegion 1y ago
        Your analogy contains a category mistake, but no doubt you'll 'examine your prior mistakes so you know what not to repeat'.
        slg 1y ago
        >Your analogy contains a category mistake Yes, that was exactly the point of my question. I was subtly accusing you of the same thing you are now overtly accusing me of doing. I was showing that we shouldn't look at everything through the lens of a probabilistic model. The authenticity of the video was not a coin flip in which the results would be random within some sort of probabilistic distribution. We were not predicting a future event. We were observing and analyzing a past event. AlotOfReading didn't just come to the wrong conclusion. Their analysis of the evidence was flawed from the start and that is why I disagreed with them in that original thread before either of us knew the truth.

by slg 1y ago

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.
  - slg 1y ago
    >The outcome of this one event simply doesn't imply anything about the correctness of AlotOfReading's model. How many times would you have to burn your hand on a hot stove before you can conclude that touching it will result in a burn?
    - FreakLegion 1y ago
      Your analogy contains a category mistake, but no doubt you'll 'examine your prior mistakes so you know what not to repeat'.
      - slg 1y ago
        >Your analogy contains a category mistake Yes, that was exactly the point of my question. I was subtly accusing you of the same thing you are now overtly accusing me of doing. I was showing that we shouldn't look at everything through the lens of a probabilistic model. The authenticity of the video was not a coin flip in which the results would be random within some sort of probabilistic distribution. We were not predicting a future event. We were observing and analyzing a past event. AlotOfReading didn't just come to the wrong conclusion. Their analysis of the evidence was flawed from the start and that is why I disagreed with them in that original thread before either of us knew the truth.