4 ms·

This isn't really how you described. You have an opinion that conflicts with the research literature. You published a blog about that opinion, and you want Chat

This isn't really how you described. You have an opinion that conflicts with the research literature. You published a blog about that opinion, and you want ChatGPT to say you're to accept your view. Your view is grinding a political axe and I don't think you're in a position to objectively assess whether ChatGPT failed in this case.

typpilol 1y ago
Yea this isn't really a chat gpt problem as a source credibility problem no?
- larsiusprime 1y ago
  It’s mostly that it was not citing verifiable - and available online - primary source documents, the way I would expect an actual researcher investigating this question would. This is relevant when it is billed as "Research Grade" or "PhD" level intelligence. I expect a PhD level researcher to find the German-language primary sources.
  - eru 1y ago
    Especially since ChatGPT speaks fluent German.
larsiusprime 1y ago
What are you talking about? There are verifiable primary sources that ChatGPT was not citing. There are direct primary historical sources that lay out the full budget of the historical German colony in extreme detail, that directly contradict assertions made in the Silagi paper, that’s not a matter of opinion that’s a matter of verifiable fact. Also what “axe” am I grinding? The findings are specifically inconvenient for my political beliefs, not confirming my priors! My priors would be flattered if Silagi was correct about everything but the primary sources definitively prove he’s exaggerating. > You published a blog about that opinion, and you want ChatGPT to say you're to accept your view. False, and I address this multiple times in the piece. I don’t want ChatGPT to mindlessly agree with me, I want it to discover the primary source documents.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  From your blog you appear to be a Georgist or inspired by Georgist socialism. And given that you appear to have a business and blog related to these subjects, you give the impression that you're a sort of activist for Georgism. I.e. not just researching it by trying to advance it. So just zooming out, that's not the right sort of setup for being an impartial researcher. And in your blog post your disagreements come off to me as wanting a sort of purity with respect to Georgism that I wouldn't be expected to be reflected in the literature. I like Kant, but it would be a bit like me saying ChatGPT was fundamentally wrong because it considered John Rawls a Kantian because I can point to this or that paper where he diverges from Kant. I could even write a blog post describing this and pointing to primary sources. But Rawls is considered a Kantian and for good reason, and it would (in my opinion) be misleading for me to say that ChatGPT made a big failure mode because it didn't take my view on my pet subject as seriously as I wanted.
  - larsiusprime 1y ago
    You misunderstand. I’m indeed a Georgist, and I discovered that a popular Georgist narrative was exaggerated! The findings of the historically verifiable primary source documents contradicted a prevailing narrative based on the Silagi paper. The Silagi paper is pro Georgist! But it’s exaggerated! The literature — the primary source documents — do not in fact support a maximalist Georgist case! This is what I have been trying to say!!! You are accusing me of the exact opposite thing I’m arguing for!!! The historical case the primary sources show is inconvenient for my political movement! The failure of chat gpt is not that it disagrees with any opinion of mine, but that it does not surface primary source documents. That’s the issue. Its baffling to be accused of confirmation bias when I point out research findings that goes against what would be maximally convenient for my own cause.
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      To clarify I am not accusing you of that. I am saying you are seeing distinctions as more important than the rest of the literature and concluding that the literature is erroneous. For example whether a given policy is Georgist. But often people who believe in a given doctrine will see differences as more important than they objectively are. For example, just to continue with socialism, it's common for socialist believers to argue that this or that country is or isn't socialist in a way that disagrees with mainstream historians. I'm sure there are other examples, for example people disagreeing about which bands are punk or hardcore. A music historian would likely cast a wider net. Fans who don't listen to many other types of music might cast a very narrow net.
eru 1y ago
Hmm, I suspect if ChatGPT would pay more attention to the German sources, they would perhaps find that supposedly right answer? I wonder if asking ChatGPT in German would make a difference.

typpilol 1y ago

Yea this isn't really a chat gpt problem as a source credibility problem no?

larsiusprime 1y ago
It’s mostly that it was not citing verifiable - and available online - primary source documents, the way I would expect an actual researcher investigating this question would. This is relevant when it is billed as "Research Grade" or "PhD" level intelligence. I expect a PhD level researcher to find the German-language primary sources.
- eru 1y ago
  Especially since ChatGPT speaks fluent German.

larsiusprime 1y ago

What are you talking about? There are verifiable primary sources that ChatGPT was not citing. There are direct primary historical sources that lay out the full budget of the historical German colony in extreme detail, that directly contradict assertions made in the Silagi paper, that’s not a matter of opinion that’s a matter of verifiable fact. Also what “axe” am I grinding? The findings are specifically inconvenient for my political beliefs, not confirming my priors! My priors would be flattered if Silagi was correct about everything but the primary sources definitively prove he’s exaggerating. > You published a blog about that opinion, and you want ChatGPT to say you're to accept your view. False, and I address this multiple times in the piece. I don’t want ChatGPT to mindlessly agree with me, I want it to discover the primary source documents.

ants_everywhere 1y ago
From your blog you appear to be a Georgist or inspired by Georgist socialism. And given that you appear to have a business and blog related to these subjects, you give the impression that you're a sort of activist for Georgism. I.e. not just researching it by trying to advance it. So just zooming out, that's not the right sort of setup for being an impartial researcher. And in your blog post your disagreements come off to me as wanting a sort of purity with respect to Georgism that I wouldn't be expected to be reflected in the literature. I like Kant, but it would be a bit like me saying ChatGPT was fundamentally wrong because it considered John Rawls a Kantian because I can point to this or that paper where he diverges from Kant. I could even write a blog post describing this and pointing to primary sources. But Rawls is considered a Kantian and for good reason, and it would (in my opinion) be misleading for me to say that ChatGPT made a big failure mode because it didn't take my view on my pet subject as seriously as I wanted.
- larsiusprime 1y ago
  You misunderstand. I’m indeed a Georgist, and I discovered that a popular Georgist narrative was exaggerated! The findings of the historically verifiable primary source documents contradicted a prevailing narrative based on the Silagi paper. The Silagi paper is pro Georgist! But it’s exaggerated! The literature — the primary source documents — do not in fact support a maximalist Georgist case! This is what I have been trying to say!!! You are accusing me of the exact opposite thing I’m arguing for!!! The historical case the primary sources show is inconvenient for my political movement! The failure of chat gpt is not that it disagrees with any opinion of mine, but that it does not surface primary source documents. That’s the issue. Its baffling to be accused of confirmation bias when I point out research findings that goes against what would be maximally convenient for my own cause.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    To clarify I am not accusing you of that. I am saying you are seeing distinctions as more important than the rest of the literature and concluding that the literature is erroneous. For example whether a given policy is Georgist. But often people who believe in a given doctrine will see differences as more important than they objectively are. For example, just to continue with socialism, it's common for socialist believers to argue that this or that country is or isn't socialist in a way that disagrees with mainstream historians. I'm sure there are other examples, for example people disagreeing about which bands are punk or hardcore. A music historian would likely cast a wider net. Fans who don't listen to many other types of music might cast a very narrow net.

eru 1y ago

Hmm, I suspect if ChatGPT would pay more attention to the German sources, they would perhaps find that supposedly right answer? I wonder if asking ChatGPT in German would make a difference.