dahart

9 ms·

121.
by dahart 3mo ago
> entirely possible that it’s a placebo Placebo Effect is not Dunning Kruger. Making incorrect assumptions or having incorrect beliefs is not Dunning Kruger either. Possible is not certain. So if it’s not a placebo effect? If the author
122.
by dahart 3mo ago
At least the judges read a lot. It could be worse…
123.
by dahart 3mo ago
For emphasis? That’s your takeaway?
124.
by dahart 3mo ago
> Correlation does not imply causation This is not relevant to what I said. We are closer to ending sexism and racism due to legislation, which is causal. We took specific actions to try to end sexism and racism and we know they had a po
125.
by dahart 3mo ago
What about them? Being white doesn’t make people immune to drugs, nor guarantee anything, right? So what’s your point? Race advantage is something you can’t always see by looking at individuals, especially cherry picked examples. Bias is a
126.
by dahart 3mo ago
> Holy Dunning-Kruger effect… Do you know they’re wrong? Please don’t invoke Dunning Kruger like this, it’s cliché and also wrong to do. There’s no indicator for whatever it is Dunning & Kruger showed, you cannot know if it applies t
127.
by dahart 3mo ago
Saying you have a preference is creepy. Having one and making decisions based on that is absolutely normal and always has been, and is not immoral, contrary to your claim. The vast majority of marriages globally are same race marriages.
128.
by dahart 3mo ago
Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S. We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965.
129.
by dahart 3mo ago
I’d be very happy to discuss the nuances and relative merits. I agree that it’s time to have race blind admissions and stop preferential treatment. I’m arguing against the hyperbolic notion that affirmative action is inherently immoral. @ra
130.
by dahart 3mo ago
> You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally No, and you’re intentionally escalating things and I don’t appreciate it. I’ve been more than clear already that I don’t necessarily support affirmat
131.
by dahart 3mo ago
> Wrong, but not illegal. Why is racial preference in partner wrong?? Who agrees with this anywhere?
132.
by dahart 3mo ago
I reject your presumptive framing that affirmative action is a “punishment”. If you help someone, you are punishing the entire world?
133.
by dahart 3mo ago
> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason. > Objectively, Black Americans a
134.
by dahart 3mo ago
Thank you. Yes the whole problem and confounding factor with this argument is that racism exists, and emerged on its own. If we choose Laissez Faire, we already know the outcome, and it’s bad. The notion that we should do nothing to fix it
135.
by dahart 3mo ago
Exactly. It depends. It’s not a given.
136.
by dahart 3mo ago
The death penalty is an example of two wrongs making a right in the minds of many people. It’s also at the same time an example of two wrongs not making a right. Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawf
137.
by dahart 3mo ago
> Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? > Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. What do you mean? Class a
138.
by dahart 3mo ago
> we have defined treating an individual differently based on their race as a moral wrong. The act is wrong, regardless of your motivations No, I don’t think so, You’re conflating racism with discrimination. We humans discriminate positi
139.
by dahart 3mo ago
Yes! Exactly. Affirmative action should naturally end itself if it works. The goal is to equalize opportunity and stop preferential treatment, not to hang on to preferential treatment. Well said, it does need to stop eventually. Now might b
140.
by dahart 3mo ago
Yep. Maybe a little bit like a sports handicap, you’re not trying to give someone a better chance of winning than everyone else, you’re trying to give them equal chances based on historical data. Gemini gave me an okay analogy: “If a pendul
141.
by dahart 3mo ago
Yes this is true, that can and has happened. I don’t think it’s true as rule, but it’s a valid point. Still, the most important question is what is the alternative? We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before
142.
by dahart 3mo ago
It feels like a platitudinal aphorism to me, it’s trite and cliche and overused and was delivered as if it’s insightful in hopes of ending the debate. Google appears to agree vigorously that “two wrongs don’t make a right” is a platitude. O
143.
by dahart 3mo ago
If only it were actually that simple and fixed with platitudes. Culture and belief is passed on from generation to generation, otherwise we wouldn’t have had the persistent problem in the first place. How do we fix a problem that we already
144.
by dahart 3mo ago
> This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it sta
145.
by dahart 3mo ago
> Transcribing is transformative. Not under US Copyright Law, it isn’t. Transcribing is derivative , not transformative. BTW, if it was transformative, it’d be fair use and legal, and you’d be contradicting yourself.
146.
by dahart 3mo ago
Today, depending on which model you use. You’re making unstated assumptions. And that’s not a fundamental property of LLMs, it’s happenstance. LLMs are capable of ‘plasticity’, by design.
147.
by dahart 3mo ago
> Scientists who adopt AI gain productivity and visibility: On average, they publish three times as many papers, receive nearly five times as many citations, and become team leaders a year or two earlier than those who do not. To me this
148.
by dahart 3mo ago
> always a hobby project, never something serious. I don’t know what you’re reading, but always and never are strong words. I’ll predict by this time next year you’ll have seen some pretty serious AI uses, and can no longer say always&#x
149.
by dahart 3mo ago
> It’s a tool. Good for some things but not for others and generally not to be trusted. I agree completely you always need to check the work of LLM agents, but it does strike me as a tiny bit funny to anthropomorphize AI by using ‘trust’
150.
by dahart 3mo ago
> the models are quite literally stupid. You’re arguing via reductionism, and failing to explain the outcomes and emergent properties of the “stupid” system. Humans are made of atoms that are quite literally stupid, so by all means, expl

More ›