Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lostmsu t1_j1t7nph wrote

Reply to comment by aussie_punmaster in [R] Large language models are not zero-shot communicators by mrx-ai

> If we’re talking about a lost child

Now you are just making things up.

> my information is hours out of date I don’t just say

This depends on the context of the dialog, which in this case is not present. E.g. this could be a conversation about events happening elsewhere only tangentially relevant to the conversation participant(s). For a specific example consider that dialog being about the disappearance of MH370 flight.

> One person disagreeing is not a sufficient threshold for clarity. > was taking the argument to the absurd to show that one person’s unclear doesn’t invalidate a truth.

It normally would not be, but we are not two randomly selected people, and neither of us is crazy nor do we argue in bad faith.

1

aussie_punmaster t1_j1w351b wrote

Well you can just answer “we can’t be sure” to every question in life then.

Scenario 2:

Bob: “Are there any apples left?” Fred: “There are 2 in the fruit bowl”

Question - How many apples are there?
lostmsu - we can’t be sure. Maybe Fred looked at the fruit bowl yesterday, and since then perhaps someone else took one.

This is the logic you are selling. Obviously I’m not going to be able to convince you though. I’d suggest we leave it here, although I would encourage you to survey some friends. See if you find anyone else who agrees with you.

0

lostmsu t1_j1x7gfr wrote

>lostmsu - we can’t be sure. Maybe Fred looked at the fruit bowl yesterday

I mean. I mean. Did you read the last sentence? I am selling the logic that if two sane non-stupid people in good faith disagree, then it is unclear. In you example lostmsu is a fruit of your imagination. You can't be sure that fruit is sane and non-stupid. Here the argument is that we are in the ML subreddit context, and we both understand the topic at hand which raises the chances of both of us matching the criteria to near 100%.

In this context if I would start disagreeing with 1+1=2 you should at least start doubting, that e.g. I'm on to something.

1