4 ms·

To modifying a hitchism. > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Becomes > That which can be asserted without thought

To modifying a hitchism. > What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Becomes > That which can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought. Since no current AI thinks but humans do I’m just going to dismiss anything an AI says out of hand because you are pushing the cost of parsing what it said onto me and off you and nah, ain’t accepting that.

greazy 1y ago
That's wonderfully succinct argument.
- lostmsu 1y ago
  It hinges assuming that ChatGPT does not thinking, which is clearly false. Hell, Feynman said as much in 1985. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI
  - malfist 1y ago
    I really don't think Feynman said ChatGPT was "thinking" in 1985.
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      He was referring to computers and program execution in general.
      - galagawinkle489 1y ago
        He was wrong. He wasn't right about everything just because he's reddit's favourite physicist (after Neil Degrass Tyson).
        lostmsu 1y ago
        Surely he is not wrong just because you say so.
zenoprax 1y ago
Elegant and correct. It seems so obvious to me that if someone wanted a ChatGPT answer they would have sought it out for themselves and yet... it's happened to me more than a few times. I think some people think they are being clever and resourceful (or 'efficient') but it just dilutes their own authority on that which they were asked to opine.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  People often don't want an AI answer because it won't readily agree with their worldview, particularly in politics.
notanastronaut 1y ago
Would the same thought apply to Wikipedia, though. If a user said "Well, according to Wikipedia" and blah blah blah, would that be dismissed out of hand.
- Telaneo 1y ago
  If you copy-paste the first paragraph or the whole text of a Wikipedia page, then absolutely. If you have to dig in to a decently log page to find a small blurb, highlight the text you believe to be germane to whatever point is being made, and also provide the reference listed on Wikipedia, and/or provide some reasoning as to why you believe that to be correct, then no. One of these courses of action is helpful, while the other one very much isn't. Copy-pasting 5 paragraphs of ChatGPT is equally not helpful. If however find one small blurb in that ChatGPT output that's germane to whatever point is being made, and copy and paste that, along with a source and/or your reasoning as to why that is correct, then you're probably back to being helpful again. This however is not what most instances of 'chatGPT said' are. Most of those are 'chatGPT said [insert word salad here]' or '[chatGPT said [thing obvious from even the most cursory knowledge about the subject at hand]'.

greazy 1y ago

That's wonderfully succinct argument.

lostmsu 1y ago
It hinges assuming that ChatGPT does not thinking, which is clearly false. Hell, Feynman said as much in 1985. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI
- malfist 1y ago
  I really don't think Feynman said ChatGPT was "thinking" in 1985.
  - lostmsu 1y ago
    He was referring to computers and program execution in general.
    - galagawinkle489 1y ago
      He was wrong. He wasn't right about everything just because he's reddit's favourite physicist (after Neil Degrass Tyson).
      - lostmsu 1y ago
        Surely he is not wrong just because you say so.

zenoprax 1y ago

Elegant and correct. It seems so obvious to me that if someone wanted a ChatGPT answer they would have sought it out for themselves and yet... it's happened to me more than a few times. I think some people think they are being clever and resourceful (or 'efficient') but it just dilutes their own authority on that which they were asked to opine.

DangitBobby 1y ago
People often don't want an AI answer because it won't readily agree with their worldview, particularly in politics.

notanastronaut 1y ago

Would the same thought apply to Wikipedia, though. If a user said "Well, according to Wikipedia" and blah blah blah, would that be dismissed out of hand.

Telaneo 1y ago
If you copy-paste the first paragraph or the whole text of a Wikipedia page, then absolutely. If you have to dig in to a decently log page to find a small blurb, highlight the text you believe to be germane to whatever point is being made, and also provide the reference listed on Wikipedia, and/or provide some reasoning as to why you believe that to be correct, then no. One of these courses of action is helpful, while the other one very much isn't. Copy-pasting 5 paragraphs of ChatGPT is equally not helpful. If however find one small blurb in that ChatGPT output that's germane to whatever point is being made, and copy and paste that, along with a source and/or your reasoning as to why that is correct, then you're probably back to being helpful again. This however is not what most instances of 'chatGPT said' are. Most of those are 'chatGPT said [insert word salad here]' or '[chatGPT said [thing obvious from even the most cursory knowledge about the subject at hand]'.