Comment on Why do neurotypicals like AI slop?
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 days agoObservation is the first step to formulating a theory, which leads to a hypothesis, which can be experimentally tested.
That would be valid if it was what you did. Except you didn’t. You assumed the hypothesis to be true and asked us why it’s true. You should instead be asking whether or not it’s true.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
And you reckon asking why something is true isn’t the same as asking if something is true?
howrar@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
It is not the same thing. When you ask why X is true, you’re not only asking the question. You’re also making the claim that X is true. Since the premise of the question is wrong, you’re making everyone do extra work to figure out why your question isn’t making sense to them and what question you actually need to have answered.
You can invite speculation without making false claims. You also haven’t contributed anything other than anecdotes despite having made that false claim.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
Except this isn’t how language works, “Why do all the Asians wear black jeans?” invites both questions, unless the former is explicitly stated as a fact. It is obvious that any such thing is an unfalsifiable observation.
People aren’t robots. “you’re making everyone do extra work” - not how people work, not how reasoning works. Viewing something through a framework of even incorrect assumptions can provide unique insight. That is inviting speculation.
On the other hand - you’re continuously asserting my claim is false but have provided no proof of this.
You have only questioned the proof of my claim, which yes - is anecdotal only, pure observation, as I readily admitted, and was never intended as a fact.
howrar@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
Language serves to communicate. If most people who know nothing of the subject read your question and understand “X is true” from it, then that is what you’re communicating. Of course, I have no way of actually providing evidence for this besides anecdotes since I don’t have the means to actually run a study on it. But if you’ve had enough human interactions, you’ll have seen a lot of these types of questions where people will genuinely try to answer them as if they’re true, or point to such questions as evidence for something being true. You’ll also often see this for personal attacks (e.g. “Why are you such a doofus?”).
This is probably an area where LLMs can actually be useful since they hold a lot of information on something of an average of what most people think. Give it a sentence and ask how it might be interpreted by others.
Yes, and? Humans are meat bags. It costs a lot of energy for meat bags to think, and humans tend to be very energy efficient. If you can get away with doing less thinking, then most people will. This is something I’m constantly being made aware of because my particular brand of autism doesn’t allow me to take advantage of this efficiency, which is what makes it so debilitating.
If you have some familiarity with information theory, it might be more convincing to think about it through that lens and consider how certain interpretations / assumptions lead to higher efficiency.
If I did, I did not mean to. I don’t interact with enough neurotypical people to say whether it’s true or not. I think you can just replace “since” with “if” in my previous comment to correct for this.