Tu quoque fallacy

huh, i didn't know there was a formalised name for this, TIL

Knowing and understanding what you are doing is the entirety of the point, and the whole AI industry misunderstands this.

The industry as a whole (in this case LLM's, not AI in general) isn't misunderstanding anything, their goals are not your goals.

The end users are potentially misunderstanding the goal of the capitalist infrastructure companies and supporting businesses, which is .....to turn a profit.

They aren't interested in making your life easier, giving you accurate information or providing you with a useful tool....unless doing so makes them money.

So it's really a goal alignment question :

Do you think that your goals/ethics as a professional (or personally) are in line enough with the corporations current method of value extraction to make using their offering a viable option?

And constantly evaluate this decision over time, because it might change.

The code, the analyses, even the results, they’re all secondary to understanding why something works the way that it does. Your individual comprehension is the part that matters.

As a professional in an industry, yes, insofar as that approach fulfills the criteria of success in your industry.

I also agree with this personally.

Contextual Note (in my opinion) :

With some exceptions, people as a whole are also survival driven.

So even with what i said above there aren't many people who would put "individual comprehension" over survival.

Ultimately i think it comes down to a difference in approach to something like a hierarchy of needs.

People have basic survival and then a bunch of stuff on top.

Corporations generally have survival(profit).....and that's it.

Obviously I'm speaking in generalities, there are businesses that have stated (and provably followed) goals above and beyond profit but i can't think of many.

edit: and i can't think of any involved in LLM shenanigans right now.

Ngl I had to look them up, but sure, that tracks

From your post history there are so many wins I’m surprised i lasted as long as i did.

I should really research before i try and take on the champ.

It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…

Not a good one, but sure, technically.

It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.

It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.

It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.

You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.

That's also a poor argument in it's ambiguity , "embrace their nature" is almost as hand-wavy as "gods design", though it falls down for a different reason.

Replace god with nature, basically.

You'd have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than "nature", there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice you'd care to mention.

If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.

That makes even less sense than "natural".

It also addresses none of the points raised.

Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a "gut feeling" it's my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.

You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they don't have to make sense to me because I’m not using them.

Thanks for the back and forth anyway.

If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what's happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.

If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don't mention that that is happening you're going to get confusion.

they are doing "the 3 body problem" now iirc

I agree that it’s human nature and always will be. But that doesn’t mean it’s ok or that we should shrug and say oh well.

Agreed.

It means that we need to always be guarding against it and condemning it when it happens.

Agreed, in principle, but i suspect our definitions of what qualifies as "it" will differ greatly.

There are times in history where ideological violence has gotten way out of hand, and i believe we can avoid that if we try.

I think that's naively optimistic, though having it as a goal isn't the worst thing we could be doing.

Also there are times in history where blind optimism has let toxic and harmful ideologies fester and take root.

Think "Paradox of tolerance".

And if we instead encourage it then we will have another cultural revolution or holocaust like in China or Russia or Germany.

That's a hard, giant leap in logic, you'd need to at least have some evidence of direct causation before I'd even consider that as a reasonable line of thought.

But that is only my opinion, with all that entails.

I don’t agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump’s project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn’t trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.

Fair enough, i don't agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i'm not sure it matters.

Assuming his stance wasn't antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that's an entirely different argument.

He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don’t see the need to defend him on that one.

Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.

Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn't, is a common bad faith tactic.

Perhaps that isn't what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that's what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.

Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn’t alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well.

Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = "people don't like the truth".

Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.

That you weren't actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )

There’s comments in this tread with false info that’s being upvoted.

Agreed.

Choosing not to engage can also be a positive rather than just the prevention of negatives.

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn't happen.

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it's going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it's a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the "Just to pre-empt...." quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it's not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

• Bad faith arguments
• References to things that didn't happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn't relate to the "argument" being made
• Fallacies in place of actual points
• Personal attacks
• Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
• Complaints that i'm pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
• Equivalent of "I'm not arguing with someone who clearly doesn't understand "
• lol
• lmao

ah, apologies, i wasn't implying that your 'source' was weak, it was clear you were stating a personal opinion so no 'source' needed.

I was using a slang term : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weak+sauce

I was implying your argument was weak, built on a shaky foundation of personal opinion stated as universal fact.