3 ms·

I think the real problem is most people don't actually have a very good understanding of "Truth." As someone who ended up studying philosophy, there seems to b

by scoofy 7mo ago

I think the real problem is most people don't actually have a very good understanding of "Truth." As someone who ended up studying philosophy, there seems to be a real gulf between folks who sort of believe stuff they hear, folks who believe "facts" that they hear from (various levels of) credible sources, and folks that take solipsism seriously understand that even in the most ideal scenario, we still wouldn't have a very good understanding about the world... much less dealing with the inherent flaws in our research and information systems. Knowledge is hard. It usually takes me a couple minutes to figure out what type "truth" my interlocutor uses. Typically good-faith disagreements are just walking up the chain of presuppositions we use to find out exactly where we diverge in our premises.

benterix 7mo ago
Man, I had a partner who studied philosophy, too. I'd ask a simple question and they'd answer, "Wait, before we even start, we need to define the axioms". It was fun and interesting but eventually non practical, because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on.
- scoofy 7mo ago
  >because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on. I mean, I completely agree with you. You can understand Karl Popper without being exhausting. Understanding the scope and resolution of the information people are discussing is indeed important. Even when I'm getting really technical, I can get away with throwing in a "probably" here and there and spare the person I'm talking to. At the same time, folks who try to talk about empirical facts with deductive certainty can be extremely difficult to engage with seriously. That type of knowledge is always just a series of escalating assumptions, and if that premise is not shared, it can be difficult to have a productive conversation. Not understanding the difference between and empirical framework and a deductive framework becomes readily apparent when the discussion of Wikipedia comes up. That distinction -- the problem of empiricism -- is effectively at the heart of why "trusting LLMs" is infuriating to people. Humans seem to have an innate conception of a chain of trust that connects us from "folks who know the facts" to us receiving that truth. When in reality, the scientists who wrote those papers are usually just "pretty sure" that their publications are actually correct. I'm not trying to make an excuse for trusting LLMs. That's asinine. I'm just saying that the concern with LLMs generally indicates a misunderstanding of what knowledge is, more generally.
  - benterix 7mo ago
    I totally get it. I remember when my daughter first asked about the origin of the world, I was really thinking hard, knowing she expects a simple and possibly a reassuring answer. In the end, I opted for honest and said: "I don't know. But I will show you what people believe, from scientists to religions, and you will decide for yourself". Yes, she was slightly disappointed, but I didn't regret that.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

by scoofy 7mo ago

benterix 7mo ago

Man, I had a partner who studied philosophy, too. I'd ask a simple question and they'd answer, "Wait, before we even start, we need to define the axioms". It was fun and interesting but eventually non practical, because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on.

scoofy 7mo ago
>because other people are not interested into getting deeply into something, they just want a simple answer to a problem at hand and then move on. I mean, I completely agree with you. You can understand Karl Popper without being exhausting. Understanding the scope and resolution of the information people are discussing is indeed important. Even when I'm getting really technical, I can get away with throwing in a "probably" here and there and spare the person I'm talking to. At the same time, folks who try to talk about empirical facts with deductive certainty can be extremely difficult to engage with seriously. That type of knowledge is always just a series of escalating assumptions, and if that premise is not shared, it can be difficult to have a productive conversation. Not understanding the difference between and empirical framework and a deductive framework becomes readily apparent when the discussion of Wikipedia comes up. That distinction -- the problem of empiricism -- is effectively at the heart of why "trusting LLMs" is infuriating to people. Humans seem to have an innate conception of a chain of trust that connects us from "folks who know the facts" to us receiving that truth. When in reality, the scientists who wrote those papers are usually just "pretty sure" that their publications are actually correct. I'm not trying to make an excuse for trusting LLMs. That's asinine. I'm just saying that the concern with LLMs generally indicates a misunderstanding of what knowledge is, more generally.
- benterix 7mo ago
  I totally get it. I remember when my daughter first asked about the origin of the world, I was really thinking hard, knowing she expects a simple and possibly a reassuring answer. In the end, I opted for honest and said: "I don't know. But I will show you what people believe, from scientists to religions, and you will decide for yourself". Yes, she was slightly disappointed, but I didn't regret that.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]