The technique is old so the “novelty” is said in the spirit of irony?
A more significant problem is what information you apply this technique to. If you know the claim is narrow (small data) and the decision is immidiate and important, surely yes. But if the claims are many (huge data) this becomes laboursome even for important decisions. If there is no pending decision then if you don’t fact check it you accumulate a pool of attitude/information that has the taint of misinformation contamination on it and can’t use that for important decisions. But if firewalling your mind is perfect then any belief or attitude taht you don’t which pool it is based on has the chance it comes from the risky pool.
And it is not like ChaatGPT has fact checked its own contents
Looks to me like this post was quite clearly written by ChatGPT. It’s a bit scary that this post has so many upvotes when it doesn’t appear to carry much weight on a forum about rationalism
The results seems indistinguishable from asking it to “Describe a rationality technique”.
It seems it might be need to be said that readers should be aware of how much they are projecting. I think it is a very viable option that it didn’t process or understand the “novelty” aspect of it. Even understanding “novelty” as “genre of speech that pushes outsides values into the community” is quite impressive and useful but novelty as “Figure out on your own a take that nobody has already had” is very different from that.
Similarly “rationality” is a word that has many meanings. “philosophy history corpus” aka the thing that opposed empirism is one thing. “rationality” as a subculture group designator (like “south francic bubbly drink) is also very different from “figure stuff out in a comprehensive and detailed way”.
The capability of “mention a headline from newspaper of 2nd march of 1970” does not particularly display information processing capabilty over information storage capabilities.
Not that this was presented as particularly impressive but I think the fishing expedition went looking for something else than was caught in the hook.
The technique is old so the “novelty” is said in the spirit of irony?
A more significant problem is what information you apply this technique to. If you know the claim is narrow (small data) and the decision is immidiate and important, surely yes. But if the claims are many (huge data) this becomes laboursome even for important decisions. If there is no pending decision then if you don’t fact check it you accumulate a pool of attitude/information that has the taint of misinformation contamination on it and can’t use that for important decisions. But if firewalling your mind is perfect then any belief or attitude taht you don’t which pool it is based on has the chance it comes from the risky pool.
And it is not like ChaatGPT has fact checked its own contents
Looks to me like this post was quite clearly written by ChatGPT. It’s a bit scary that this post has so many upvotes when it doesn’t appear to carry much weight on a forum about rationalism
Votes of “newsworthy stuff that ChatGPT does” do not seem that worrying. How do you separate that from votes about the contents?
I asked ChatGPT to come up with a novel technique and this is what it came up with. I just wrote the headline.
The results seems indistinguishable from asking it to “Describe a rationality technique”.
It seems it might be need to be said that readers should be aware of how much they are projecting. I think it is a very viable option that it didn’t process or understand the “novelty” aspect of it. Even understanding “novelty” as “genre of speech that pushes outsides values into the community” is quite impressive and useful but novelty as “Figure out on your own a take that nobody has already had” is very different from that.
Similarly “rationality” is a word that has many meanings. “philosophy history corpus” aka the thing that opposed empirism is one thing. “rationality” as a subculture group designator (like “south francic bubbly drink) is also very different from “figure stuff out in a comprehensive and detailed way”.
The capability of “mention a headline from newspaper of 2nd march of 1970” does not particularly display information processing capabilty over information storage capabilities.
Not that this was presented as particularly impressive but I think the fishing expedition went looking for something else than was caught in the hook.