Anonymous #1 5w

It's very much equivalent except this time the wall is purely psychological.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Need a German girl to tell me what those things are and say goodbye when she sees the information going in one ear and out the other

6

Anonymous #2 5w

Geteiltes Deutschland is the era of the Berlin Wall, post WWII, pre-fall. Wiedervereinigung is the cultural reunification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Auf wiedersehen!

6

Anonymous #1 5w

Whatever you say pretty mama

3

Anonymous #3 5w

Incredibly impractical method for day to day life and also not something you can expect kids to do. I have no firsthand evidence that Sweden exists. I’ve never been there. But we both believe it is real because there are enough trustworthy sources to indicate that it does.

-1

Anonymous #3 5w

That's true.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

It's actually an incredibly practical method for day to day life with the assistance of large language models. Those sources are not are not established based on trustworthiness, they are established through empirical credibility.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Have you ever heard of an appeal to authority fallacy?

1

Anonymous #1 5w

So what you’re saying is that those sources have a history of providing accurate information, therefore you consider them credible (aka trustworthy) for other information that you may not be able to verify firsthand.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Sources cannot have a history sources. Sources don't provide sources. Do you know anything about research??

1

Anonymous #1 5w

*history of sources

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Are you talking about organizations?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Do you know what empirical means?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

There are some sources that are agreed upon to be trustworthy based on previous work. But you usually haven’t verified that firsthand. I have never personally confirmed that Pluto exists. But we agree that it does because numerous other people have checked and confirmed, so many so that it is extremely unlikely to be fake.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Also, credible and trustworthy very much are not synonymous.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

You're conflating sources with facts now. Define a source.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I am simply saying that the idea that we need to personally double check everything ourselves to believe it (especially when some things can only be understood by experts or checked with specialized equipment) is how we get flat earthers. I am in a specialized profession. I’m a field biologist. I can personally confirm that blue crabs consume green crabs in Maine salt pools. You haven’t checked that, but you probably believe the scientists who study it.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

What is a source? Because right now it seems to be whatever you want it to be.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

You are drilling in way too much on the semantics of individual words rather than engaging with the broader point. This level of granularity and quibbling is distracting from the actual point.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

No you are being shifty and I'm trying to pin you down.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Do I need to say large language models again?? Knowledge is becoming completely democratized.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

The way I was using the word source was to refer to some entity where you get information from, mainly a secondary or tertiary source. For example, NASA telling us that Pluto exists.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

It's like the invention of the filing cabinet. It increases the rate at which we can parse information. It's a tool, a restructuring of organization, and it's inevitable. There is no closing Pandora's box so things are going to be different here on out

1

Anonymous #1 5w

How the fuck are the hallucinating glorified autocomplete machines coming into this. ChatGPT doesn’t *understand* anything. It just collects information from what’s online and spits it back to you. Have you seen how much Google AI gets stuff completely wrong? And having something chewed up and spit out in a simplified manner doesn’t lead to true understanding on the topic.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

That's not what a source is. A source is a publication. Not an entity.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

You'd be surprised at how quickly those bugs disappeared. It's developing rapidly and improving by the day.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I also said large language models. Not chatgpt or google gemini.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

You are freaking out over bugs as if they are features while turning a blind eye to reality. I worry for you.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Cast fear out of your judgment. It will be your downfall.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I’m a biologist so that tech stuff is not my thing. But I know my research well enough to know you can’t trust something which doesn’t actually understand what it is doing. All you’re doing is adding a layer of opacity past the actual scientific studies that leaves massive room for error, hallucinations, and programmed bias.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Yeah and tech stuff is my thing. Again you're talking about bugs, not features.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Do we trash things that are buggy?? NO we fix them!!!

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I don't think you understand how revolutionary it is.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Unfortunately modern culture at large is very big on throwing things away instead of debugging, all the while you can't really throw things again, they always go somewhere. And so now we have societal bugs everywhere. That's nobody's fault but our own.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Yeah whatever use your corporate machine shit to tell you what’s true about the world. I’m sure when it tells you that “AI-Co Dental Whitening Strips™️ are the best on the market” it’ll be really credible with no room for bias. I’m gonna keep reading studies myself and using my brain to think and not rely on a corporate machine to drip feed me “totally unbiased information”

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Again you're referencing bugs...

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I never said chatgpt or gemini. You do realize LLMs can be run locally right???

1

Anonymous OP 5w

And Jesus Christ I’m glad my industry thinks this shit is garbage because the day a generation of new “scientists” arrives who only understand the AI-simplified version of concepts would be a dark day for humanity.

5

Anonymous OP 5w

AI only simplifies things when we ask it to. That's on us. Not the AI.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

All those college students using their local homegrown artisanal free range LLMs to summarize their chemistry textbooks.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

It will be a dark day when you wake up and realize you contributed to the squandering of all our potential.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

AI is merely revealing deeper issues with US. It's like a mirror. We can blame it all we want for showing us what we are.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

But at the end of the day, it doesn't lie. It merely makes errors every now and then. Much like us.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Yeah whatever im really gonna do that squandering by reading papers myself and not just whatever a model tells me they say. Really ruining humanity. I do my biology field world myself. I get my hands dirty. So that I can help us move into a better future with sustainable ecosystems. So I will keep doing my shit myself and not buy into this messianic bullshit about how LLMs are gonna save us all by drip-feeding us information without deeper investigation.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Making it sound like you’re building the basilisk isn’t a great pitch

4

Anonymous OP 5w

Why can't both exist side by side??? You are describing BUGGY corporate AI.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

You are wasting your time by reading all the details. Society is moving too fast for that anymore.

1

Anonymous #2 5w

You think mirrors are evil?

1

Anonymous #1 5w

“It’s only the bugs bro it’s only the corporate stuff bro it’s gonna stop hallucinating bro I promise AI is gonna save us bro it’s democratizing information bro it will revolutionize humanity anything it gets wrong is because humans are imperfect beings bro”

1

Anonymous #2 5w

You're just seeing our reflection. We cannot blame the mirror.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Yes that's all exactly right. You can mock me all I want but this is the truth.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

When was the last time you used chatgpt?

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Telling a fuckin biologist that checking the actual data doesn’t matter is one of the most wild fuckin things I’ve ever heard. Might as well do away with peer review while we are at it! Christ that’d undermine society in ways you don’t even know. Whatever due I’m sure you can pray to robo-Zeus and ask the great oracle for prophetic visions, but the actual data matters. Fuckin ridiculous.

6

Anonymous OP 5w

Being a skeptic gets us nowhere. You're a hinderance to the betterment of humanity.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Please point me to the exact place where i said checking the actual data doesn't matter. Thanks!

1

Anonymous #1 5w

My man science itself is just systematized skepticism. This bizarre pseudo-religious devotion is genuinely scary. Like fuck, you’re a black mirror character.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Material/classical science*

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Right here. What do you think I’m doing when I read a paper? I check the sample size, methods, statistical significance, and data to determine if the conclusion listed is actually supported by the data. Reading the title or abstract isn’t enough

2

Anonymous OP 5w

You aren't even trying to hear me.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

The AI will tell you those details via this wonderful simple thing which it has mastered, called ✨summarization✨

1

Anonymous #3 5w

I said empirical evidence not first hand experience. You can find studies that control for every relevant variable to back up any claim that’s true. If it is not a clear and empirical truth it shouldn’t be believed in the first place.

4

Anonymous OP 5w

You can make the AI follow whatever rules you want it to. You don't have to follow the evil corporate ones. It centralizes imagination

3

Anonymous #3 5w

THANK YOU! Though I think OP is way past that.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

That still relies on the trustworthiness of the journal, the peer reviewers, and the people who did the study. *You* can’t know that the data itself is real. There is some level of trust implicit in any information you haven’t gained yourself. But we are okay with that. Also this got way more out of hand than your original reply we are on how the robo-messiah is imminent now apparently.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

You're an idiot. You clearly don't understand how close we are to the asymptote of the exponential growth of technology. It is near vertical. Change is undeniably imminent and you have to be a fool not to see it.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

There is no robot messiah. You're just being a fucking douchebag.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Have a miserable life caring for all the suffering animals whose perpetrator you keep giving the fucking pass. If care about nature, address humanity.

3

Anonymous #1 5w

Damn I’m not even gonna lie that’s a fucking bar

1