but there are "peaceful ones" like Buddhism or Jainism.

You could argue that there are some where historically the violence in less prominent, on a relative scale.

But I'd be surprised if you had a single example of an organised religion with zero historical violence.

Unless you want to "no true scotsman" through it.

So the most basic fallacy I was alluding to, from people who believe you can refine your faith by talking with an LLM is this: An LLM has no subjective experiences, because it doesn’t experience anything at all. This is one way how using the output from an LLM as a source of inspiration for your faith sets you up for psychosis. You start believing things that have no basis in reality or anyone’s genuine experiences. Rather, you may start believing in machine-generated approximations from which coherence has been lost.

Reasonable, though it could be argued they are full of subjective experiences, just all mixed together.

But i expect it's probably more about the coherence of the experience that provides the meaning in this context.

Coherence as in , one coherent explanation of a subjective experience by a person rather than a plausible sounding experience made up of many bits of experiences from a corpus of data.

But it seems your understanding was slightly different, in that people might develop their own sense of faith from experiences with an LLM itself rather than through the exchange of presumed experiences with the LLM. Do I understand correctly that you think some people attribute godlike qualities to the LLM, maybe through the presumption that it is an AGI? That would be a bit of a different discussion indeed :)

Not exactly, i think there are two different things here from my side.

The first:

I think people might attribute person like qualities to an LLM, the "ghost in the machine" as was mentioned earlier.

I wasn't trying to imply someone who knows what an AGI is supposed to be would use that knowledge to assign godlike attributes to an LLM (a "god in the machine").

Though , as a concept that would also be a valid example of "belief in the absence of proof".

I don't expect most people to know the terminology or have even an idea of what's happening behind the scenes.

The second:

The part i'm struggling with is why "faith" in something like ability for meaning to come from LLM generated text (god-like or person-like) is any less acceptable than "faith" derived from perceived meaning in seemingly random (based on the knowledge of the time) events, like thunderstorms or plagues.

They would both cover the idea of belief in something in the absence of proof, so how would someone decide one is less valid than the other.

I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn't an asset it's probably not a great idea to get caught lying.

I will say though, having been employed, the ability to "gracefully massage" the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.

i'm of the opinion that if someone has done their best* ^[a good faith best effort, considering the circumstances] to consider the consequences of an approach and chooses to take that approach while accepting the potential outcomes, then that is an acceptable decision making process.

In some cases escalation might be a potential outcome and as long as the person understands that, then them choosing that option is their considered choice.

In the same way that freedom of speech* ^[the general idea not the US specific thing] isn't freedom from consequences, freedom of choice isn't freedom from other peoples choosing to act against you.

If you want to make what seems like a poor choice from my point of view, i might advise against it, but ultimately it's up to you.

However, i'm also free to try and stop you if that's what i choose. In this case i'm not looking to curtail your choices, but i am pitting my choice against yours.

see my reply here

Yes, i get that, copilot is like opencode or cursor, though perhaps with less general access to models.

There was a reply

Copilot? You mean the AI with terms of service that are in bold and explicit: “for entertainment purposes only”?

followed by

I suppose GitHub Copilot is meant, which is a different thing.

i was asking why github copilot is different in that context.

I used effectual equivalent for a reason.

I did say it was somewhat hyperbolous but there are real life examples that are possible.

Something like extended bullying directly leading to suicide, lies with the intention of causing harm or death.

Calls to violence that lead to deaths that otherwise wouldn't likely happen is a good example of one that can be technically correct but difficult to prove.

Intentionally telling someone a door leads to safety when it actually leads to a spike pit is effectually the same as stabbing them yourself.

Are those examples good enough for an answer?

Im looking for how the idea holds up at the logical extreme so I can understand the bounds of the theoretical context.

There doesn't have to be a good answer either, some ideas only work in a limited boundary and break down at the extremes.

Custom printed.

The front rack grills, keystone panels and thinkcentre mounts are from a website but all the other printed parts are custom.

i'm not utilising it nearly as much as i should which is why i haven't gotten around to the failover cluster yet.

The answer is generic ....which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.

Here is an example, as the answer to your question :

this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?

Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:

• The success criteria for the position were known
• His history/skillset/experience/future prospects were likely to meet or exceed those criteria

If you want to know if he's the most qualified for the job you also need to:

• Rank all the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.

and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.

If you're going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.

Outside of that example, it can vary.

I shouldn't have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.

My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn't impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.

As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don't think it is.

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS

I'd put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren't particularly easy to access from the outside.

Not to say it isn't possible.

There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start

To a degree yes, but assuming they aren't pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.

They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.

Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don't care about, but that isn't the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.