Tu quoque fallacy

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

Im not sure of the general context here, but in the UK gypsy was mostly used to ( derogatorily ) refer to the Romani.

Also commonly called "travelers" due to their nomadic nature.

As with a lot of derogatory colloquialisms its usage has mutated/changed over time and differs between geographic areas.

Modern usage is generally aimed at the groups of people who nomadically move around in large caravan convoys, they may or may not descend from (or identify as) Roma.

They have a poor reputation.

If you've ever seen the movie Snatch , the group that brad pitt is a part of is one example of "gypsies".

Best I can tell, they are "Irish" gypsies but many different variations exist.

Word choice or disagreement with the assertion as a whole?

Indeed, though I was just rephrasing the question from the person you were replying to.

Responded to the wrong comment, apologies.

i have posted a response to the above comment that might contain relevant information.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

That is a well thought out and helpful answer, that's useful to me in understanding come aspects of faith in general, thank you.

Before i continue i want to highlight the differences i see between:

- LLM (Large Language Models)
	- The trending technology that is a smaller part of a general field.
        - it's what you are interacting with using ChatGPT, Claude etc
- AI (Artifical Intelligence)
	- The general field, which includes LLM's but also Neural Networks, certain kinds of algorithms and more.
- AGI (Artificial **General** Intelligence)
	- The common scientific term for what most people think of when they hear "AI". 
        - roughly and borderline inaccurately:
              - "a machine intellect of the same type as a human, matching or exceeding common human capability"

I get that faith, mysticism etc are how some of us deal with subjective ( from our point of view ) phenomena . I'd imagine this is why gods for things like storms or seasons etc come about.

As i said , I have no issue with any of that unless it starts being forced on people, i even vaguely understand how people could come to that conclusion and i'm not pretending to have any better answers.

My original question was more about this part:

Now, some people get tricked into thinking you can do the same with machines, but well, I think you can guess where I too stand on that idea.

Are you saying that the subjective experiences with the LLM's are the trick or the feeling of understanding and appreciation with the machine ?

Some peoples experiences with LLM's (perhaps what they consider to be an AGI?) sounds like they'd fall exactly in to the type of subjective phenomena that would bring about faith as a means of processing.

That some people seem to think that that kind of faith is any less valid than a guardian deity or a wind god is where I'm struggling.

I don't understand how people are making that kind of distinction, unless it's not something based in reasoning?

I want to make clear i don't think LLM's are sapient or sentient at this point, though i can't personally disprove it and am not against being convinced otherwise should sufficient rationale be provided.

I have and do look at it from that angle, my point was that the need for data collection isn't a guaranteed thing.

Even if you narrow it down to just the subset of companies for which continuous "shareholder value" is a requirement.

If it was the only avenue to profit i'd agree the need was universal, but there are other ways, some mutually exclusive.

Though i will conceded that data collection is one of the common ones.

It's one of those lore things, like the SCP Foundation or any folk tales, this one just happened to come from 4chan.

The idea of liminal spaces being creepy or unnerving isn't new, the cumulative lore around an example of that is where you get this particular story.

The SCP Foundation is another good example of this.

Is it full nerd to read through fictional files on pretend beings, sure.

Is it enjoyable, also yes, for a particular subset of people.

The reason I think this is a good example is because this particular aggregate folk tale is bleeding into other projects.

The game Control has strong SCP vibes, as does abiotic factor.

You've also got niche stories like "There is no antimemetics division"

Here is a short (15 min) film covering the opening of that book

Spoilers obviously

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Just because the baseline has shifted doesn't mean the change never happened , it just means we collectively haven't noticed as much as we could have, because the change sometimes happens at a timeframe larger than our collective memory.

That the "absolute worst" didn't come to pass doesn't negate the change that did occur.

So you’re telling me that this first reply does not state “I can tell you with a straight face that the solution homeless is something other than providing houses. The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

If you're going to use a quote as a supporting argument at least include the whole quote or it seems like you're purposely missing out the parts that don't support your argument.

the whole reply is:

I can: the solution to homelessness is a combination of mental health ed in schools, free & non-judgemental mental health support (incl. medication), free addiction recovery programs, free food, job & community support, and free housing.

If you just provide free housing, there will be a significant proportion of people who would not be able to fully benefit from it due to mental health issues, addictions, and lack of purpose in life.

The second part adds context to the first, which changes it from a

"The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

to a

"A more comprehensive (though not complete) solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

Or you’re telling me that “The solution is to provide houses AND assistance” means “providing a house without providing assistance solves the problem” ETA: which then implies that this reply states “I can tell you with a straight that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing houses. Providing houses is sufficient.”

See above

Granted, I did say “not enough” I should have clearly stated that “not enough” is equivalent to “not at all”. Keep in mind this is a generalized statement, so in order for it to be true it must be true across the entire domain.

Somewhat agreed, though that’s is dependant on the criteria for true, but let's go with this for now.

Our domain is homeless people, therefore if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home, and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

Let me break this one down:

1. if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home
2. and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

You're conflating “solving the homeless problem” and "put every person in a home"

That first argument was never provided as you've written it, nobody was arguing a housing-only solution as a complete solution.

If the first argument is true, that putting people into homes solves the homeless problem, then it is also true that putting people into homes and adequately assisting them also solves the homeless problem. The third argument finally states that the second is false because putting people into homes without help is adequate, as they are in a home. This fails to satisfy the predicate of the second argument, making it an invalid counterpoint. If the predicate is not true, the argument cannot be evaluated therefore the counterpoint is invalid. However, if the predicate of the third argument is true then the second argument is invalid. Hence, I asked for sources.

Putting aside that , again, i wasn't arguing any of those actual points (though i can engage on that if you want to start a separate thread)

That's a load bearing initial if and it's load is resting on a specific interpretation of "solves the homeless problem"

I'm not arguing your algebraic logic here, at a glance it seems fine.

I'm arguing your interpretation of the context.

No one was arguing that housing is the full solution in and of itself, so asking for sources to prove a position not taken doesn't make sense.

(there was one person who seems to be confusedly arguing for housing+ against someone who was also arguing housing+, for some reason)

As i said, boolean algebra only works if the values are correct to start with.

citation? (the stats, not the wiki for observer bias)