For many hundreds of years, blood-letting was an obvious thing to do. As was just giving people leeches for medical ailments. And ingesting mercury. We thought having sex with virgins would cure STDs. We thought doses of radiation was good for us. And tobacco. We thought it was obvious that the sun revolved around Earth.
It is enormously important to scientifically confirm things, even if they do seem obvious.
jeansburger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Confirmation of anecdotes or gut feelings is still science. At some point you need data rather than experience to help people and organizations change their perception (see: most big tech companies lighting billions of dollars on fire on generative AI).
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Not to mention based on the numbers in the article I imagine the AI might actually do better than an average human would do. It wasn’t as much of a “duh” as I thought it would be.
barsoap@lemm.ee 10 hours ago
You also need that stuff to shut up pseudo-sceptics. Like, random example, posture having an influence on mood, there were actually psychologists denying that because either a) If there’s no study on some effect then it doesn’t exist, “literature realism” or b) some now-debunked theory of the past implied it, “incorrectness by association”. Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean that you should discount catholic opinions on beer brewing, they produce some good shit.
MajorHavoc@programming.dev 1 day ago
Agreed!
I don’t mean sarcasticly, honestly. As you said, it’s still valuable science.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s true. But still. Duh.