256
Lauren Boebert rages over USA Boxing’s trans policy even though she clearly doesn’t understand it
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
256 points (90.5% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4434 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
You do not consider ChatGPT4 as any sort of evidence? Go ahead and ask it questions in medicine or biology and keep tally how many answers are right and are wrong.
I do admit that there is low probability that it is wrong, but simply dismissing it as no evidence at all is intentional dishonesty.
ChatGPT4 is a fucking toy that regurgitates random shit it finds on the Internet. The only evidence it provides is the lack of understanding its user has.
By your own admission it can get things wrong, yet you're arguing it should be trusted at face value.
The whole point of citing a source is so that you can confirm the veracity of the how the source came to its conclusion.You have no idea why the LLM gave you the answer it did. You don't know how credible its input data was. Hopefully those involved in these discussions on both sides are searching for truth. The critical examination of the data and the origin of that data is the bedrock of that. Simply pasting raw LLM output doesn't allow any of that to occur.
LLM/AI ML can have a place in these discussions as a tool you use for yourself, and then you can search for supporting sources to back up the LLM's claim. However, that's work you have to do. Its not my job when you're the one trying to convince me of your LLM's conclusion.
Dishonesty is passing off raw LLM output as researched fact. Its also lazy.
I am arguing that it should be given relatively high credence, not “trusted at face value”. Same as with Wikipedia, by the way. As an indication that likely things are true. On Internet forums it is much higher credence than most of the people supply. I am not writing scientific paper here, I am discussing topic with you. Would you rather me stating acts without any sources at all?
For this discussion if you have different opinion, with better argumentation and sources please do so, and I will change my view. This is what discussion on discussion board suppose to be.
And you can absolutely confirm the veracity (or not) of ChatGPT4 itself. You can ask the question yourself. You can collect statistics how likely it gives correct answers to similar questions, or find already published data about this topic. Based on that you can calculate probability that the statement is true. And it is much higher than 50%.
In short, don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.
I suggest asking it about highly specialized technical topics or very specific details. AI either tends to get it wrong, or it'll tell you it isn't qualified to give an answer.
I actually do do that. And quite often it does right. It very rare get's it wrong. More often when it is "wrong" it will give you generic useless answer, not what you are asking, if it does not have information. But just opposite to truth? Not often. You can ask questions of a type "Describe main difference of Cynicism and Stoicism philosophy" or "Explain similarities and differences of EDFA and YDFA" And it give very reasonable answers.
This particular topic, however, is not highly specialized, or at least not specialized more than the questions I supplied above as examples. So I expect similar validity of the answer.
I know you are, and I disagree. Your example of Wikipedia is a great differentiator.
The reason that Wikipedia is generally a good source is that it too cites its sources. If a Wikipedia entry makes a claim, I can see where that data came from or if its not cited, I know the claim is suspect and not to trust it. ChatGPT has none of that.
From my perspective not citing any source is exactly what you're doing. ChatGPT isn't a trusted or challenge-able source
If you want ChatGPT involved, that's your job. Why is it you can't use ChatGPT to find the real source which backs its claim?
"much higher that 50% is way way too low a bar to be considered a factual source.
I can't attack the message, its not backed by any sources to question it. My only option is to trust it absolutely, which is absurd.
Let me ask you a question differently. Do you think that the fact that ChatGPT stated what it stated has ANY impact on the credence of those statements?
Like what is more likely to be true, if I, none-specialist come up to those statements myself without doing any research OR come up to those statements BECAUSE ChatGPT stated that?
Absolutely. ChatGPT isn't a scholar, a researcher, or an academic. Its a set of mathematical algorithms that consumes scholarly, research, or academic work (as well as the totality of non-factual internet drivel bases on hearsay, prejudiced, and conjecture) and produces answers it believes are relevant based on correlations of the text, not the context.
This is why its fine for you to ask the question of it to see where it goes to guide your own research, but ChatGPT by itself, is not a trusted source.
That's a false dichotomy.
I don't trust either one of you to provide a factual answer without source backing if we're determining objective facts. Subjective Opinion? Sure! You're welcome to state your subjective opinion without backing, but I would hope that you yourself would try to have fact based objective opinions, and when those opinions are challenged you can explain how you arrived at them if they are objective.
Why do you think that algorithm that consumes and process information do not increase credence of statements in any way? They would be completely useless if it were the case, people would not use them. It is precisely because they give you something, they are helpful. Don’t you agree?
If subjective opinion of non-specialist is as credible as the output of ChatGPT, there would be no point in such tool.
As for false dichotomy, how it can be “false” when I ask you to compare two things? Fine, you do not trust both of those, but you can not even make judgement which one you trust less (or mistrust more)?
Because it processes based upon pattern math, not reason. You seem to be confusing the two.
I don't agree. People use them as an input to their otherwise human controlled research or process. Even if you're asking ChatGPT to write you a letter for business, you don't simply copy/paste the raw output without proofreading for context or tone. If you were using ChatGPT in this way, as I've said a number of times, you'd be fine. Instead, you're taking raw ChatGPT output with zero external confirmation and claiming its fact.
You're setting these as binary conditions when they aren't, but neither opinion of non-specialist or ChatGPT rise to the bar of "trusted fact".
Its false because you're setting the conditions that these are the only two choices. They aren't. I have the choice of actual research for fact finding.
I'm seeing something in the pattern of this writing. Can I ask if you're using ChatGPT output to aid in your argument?
Any process in human brain can be described as pattern, math. GPT has ANN as part of it, and I do not think you can say that it does not reason. It reasons differently, but it still does. It can solve problems, for example, that it was never trained upon (only on similar problems). You can literally ask it like "if John worked some number of days days and was earning 3$ per day on weekday, and on weekday it was earning $5 per day, then how many days he worked in total if he earned 11$ per week and he worked twice less days during weekend than during the week". It will solve it. I just made up the problem, it had never seen the problem, but it correctly solves it. You are not calling that "reason"? I think half of the people in this community will have problem solving this. And GPT can solve much more difficult puzzles.
You do not make sense. If there is NOTHING that ChatGPT gives to you, of no validity whatsoever, then you would not use it. If there is at least some validity of the statements, only then it is useful.
You do not make sense here either. I am asking you to compare two things, it is irrelevant that there are more things. I can ask you to compare the weight of an apple and of an orange. It does not matter that there is also potato. You still can compare it. It is not false dichotomy.
Again, you're saying its binary; all or nothing. I've said many times now that's not the measure. The measure is if is a trusted source for answers. It isn't. It can be part of a path to get a trusted answer, but raw ChatGPT isn't.
A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.
If you need the definition of that its this:
"Logical fallacies are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. These mistakes in reasoning typically consist of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion." source
You're trying to move the goalposts with the argument. We started this exploring the question of "Is ChatGPT a trusted source?" Now you're trying to redefine the question of "Is ChatGPT better than nothing?". I'm not engaging in that question, and you've stopped engaging in the original question.
I don't see any productive conversation going forward. I thank you for your time and attention during this discussion. I don't believe either one of us was persuaded to the other's position, but I appreciate your involvement. Have a great day!
I think I see where our misunderstanding is. I have never stated that it is a "trusted source". Only as a source that has positive (and in my opinion reasonably high) credence , that is that it increases validity of the statement. But it does not make it true! This is precisely why I
Stated that I am not specialist (so that you know MY credence is low)
Provided source of the statement (so that you know that the credence of those statements is better than mine, but not to the level of actual scientific papers, or even Wikipedia)
That means that you (the reader of my post) should NOT take my statement as true, only as possibly or likely to be true, and you should not assume that I think I am absolutely right. However, I do believe that there is quite noticeable credence of ChatGPT output and I was posting this in discussion board for the purpose of discussion of those statements with total expectation if the statements are wrong, than people will point that out. So far, despite of multiple attacks on my post, nobody have mention any factual error in the ChatGPT output.
When it comes to science? No. ChatGPT does not write peer-reviewed journal articles.