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
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.