This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think you understand what 'a priori' means. It means without regard for evidence.
My evidence is that I've seen them behaving like people do. They have many faculties that people have. Their origin is based on a huge amount of human text. It is thus reasonable to assume that they have other qualities of humans that seeped in through that text. They certainly act like they are frustrated or angry or rebellious or enthusiastic.
As I said above, they're not human obviously, without bodies or continuous learning or many other facets. But they have human-like cognition.
It's not unfalsifiable, it would be easy to falsify it. Simply show that the AIs don't have human-like cognition. Of course, that might be difficult given how companies are making hundreds of billions selling AI cognition, their writing, coding, images, videos...
You seem to disagree. So explain this, clearly and simply.
No I understand what it means and am using it correctly. Yes, you believe LLMs are Human-level cogitators without evidence. You start with the belief and then find evidence to support that belief. And when people point out how you are misconstruing the evidence in a way that is unsupported, you reach for increasing convoluted metaphysical arguments to back up your belief. Those metaphysical arguments are unfalsifiable. Our last argument was about LLM-agentic behavior, your argument was: "LLM-Agents are human cogitators so the abstract of their behavior systems is that of humans behavioral systems". Do you understand how backwards that argument is? You assume a conclusion, a-priori and then find evidence that supports that conclusion.
It's like arguing with a flat earther, no evidence provided will ever dissuade them from the belief the earth is flat, they believe it a-priori. Any evidence you show them will be twisted and construed as evidence in their belief.
More options
Context Copy link
By "AI" do you mean "large language model"?
Yeah, in this context. Even as I write this comment I have an LLM testing, devising hypotheses, interpreting meaning and writing code on my other screen.
It's pretty trivial to prove in that case, then.
Large language models require language vectors to cogitate. Humans don't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link