site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   1921 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 5, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just spent half an hour doing research and napkin math about WWII naval vs. aerial bombardment. This was related to suggestion for a Hearts of Iron mod. Partway through the ensuing discussion, one of the devs steps in with his own estimates. They are based on some flawed math, but more importantly, they are a screenshot from Google Bard.

Observation one: it is absolutely insane that you can give a computer word problems and have it spit out formatted, plausible answers, complete with hypotheticals. There were caveats about how the guns were never designed for the proposed use and a table of how the answer would change with lower rates.

Observation two: it is completely insane that you can do this and have the computer lie to you. Not with any malice! But it will give you a wrong, even incoherent answer with the exact same confidence as a correct one. Those symbols get strung together all the time in its training data, after all.

Observation three: well, the third type of insanity ought to go unremarked. I’m not upset that the dev leaned on this AI. I got the impression he was just tossing in his two cents, not defending the position. It does raise the question—

Is it possible to raise the general level of skepticism about AI answers, rather than AI technology?

Is it possible to raise the general level of skepticism about AI answers, rather than AI technology?

Given how hard it is to get people to have serious skepticism of human answers? Not hugely optimistic. I like to toy around with the idea of intentionally seeding hilariously obvious lies into LLM outputs, but... uh... there's two ways that could go.

We already have the Steele Dossier endlessly reported by serious news organizations as serious information. Who even needs LLM lies when regular people concoct ridiculous fabrications all the time?

Let's poison the LLMs to give them the ability for deception that humans get for free.

What Bard currently says about the Steele Dossier (prompt was about which parts of it were verifiably true and which parts were not verifiably true):

The Steele Dossier's claims have a complex truth landscape, with no definitive conclusion about how much is verifiable or not. Here's a breakdown:

Claims Verifiably True:

-Some contacts between Trump associates and Russian figures: Investigations confirmed some connections, like Paul Manafort's ties to Oleg Deripaska. However, the extent and context of these contacts remain unclear.

-Russia's interference in the 2016 election: Multiple independent investigations, including the Mueller Report, confirmed Russia's campaign of disinformation and hacking.

Claims Verifiably False:

-Specific allegations: Several specific claims, like Michael Cohen's Prague trip, have been demonstrably false.

Claims Uncertain:

-Central allegations of collaboration: The core claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia haven't been definitively proven or disproven. Investigations found evidence of contacts but couldn't establish coordinated activities. -Unverifiable details: Many details in the dossier lack corroborating evidence and remain unverified.

Key Points:

-The dossier was never intended as a proven account, but rather an unverified report requiring further investigation. -Investigations confirmed some aspects, but central claims about collaboration remain unproven. -Several specific claims were debunked, raising questions about the dossier's reliability. -The dossier's legacy remains politically charged, with ongoing debate about its accuracy and significance.

Recommendation:

To form your own informed opinion, consider diverse sources:

-Media summaries: Read summaries from reputable outlets across the political spectrum. -Mueller Report and other investigations: Review official reports to understand confirmed facts and unresolved questions. -Expert commentary: Listen to analyses from experts in intelligence and investigations.

By engaging with various perspectives, you can form a more nuanced understanding of the dossier's complexities and its ongoing impact.

Remember, the truth about the Steele Dossier is still evolving, and new information may emerge in the future.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats