Nobody should post raw experimental data as publication. Write normal post, with hypothesis, methods (“I’m asking LLMs in such-n-such way because of my hypothesis”) and results (“Here are (small) excerpts or overall text statistics that (dis)prove my hypothesis”) and publish full dialogue at pastebin or something like that. I don’t think you are going to be amused if I post on LW 150Gb of genomic data I usually work with, even if I consider them interesting.
you’re not even dismissing Ex Post Facto logic for good reasons here, just dismissing it because it is old and latin… or something?
Because it’s well-established position that social norms (including legal) and norms of rationality are different things?
It’s a simple common sense: for example, serial killer can be released from court, if evidence used to convict them came from unlawful source (like, it was stolen without a warrant). It is an important legal norm, because we can’t let police steal from people to get evidence. But if you have seen the evidence ifself, it is not sensible to say “well, they weren’t declared guilty, so I can hung out with this person without concerns for my safety”.
More of it, downvoting… is not subject to well-written norms? I see bad content, I downvote it. There are exceptions, like mass-downvoting someone’s posts, but besides that my downvoting is not a subject of legal/moderation norms. If you feel need to reference legal norms, you may take “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”.
[Edit: edited section considered too combative]
Nobody should post raw experimental data as publication. Write normal post, with hypothesis, methods (“I’m asking LLMs in such-n-such way because of my hypothesis”) and results (“Here are (small) excerpts or overall text statistics that (dis)prove my hypothesis”) and publish full dialogue at pastebin or something like that. I don’t think you are going to be amused if I post on LW 150Gb of genomic data I usually work with, even if I consider them interesting.
Because it’s well-established position that social norms (including legal) and norms of rationality are different things?
It’s a simple common sense: for example, serial killer can be released from court, if evidence used to convict them came from unlawful source (like, it was stolen without a warrant). It is an important legal norm, because we can’t let police steal from people to get evidence. But if you have seen the evidence ifself, it is not sensible to say “well, they weren’t declared guilty, so I can hung out with this person without concerns for my safety”.
More of it, downvoting… is not subject to well-written norms? I see bad content, I downvote it. There are exceptions, like mass-downvoting someone’s posts, but besides that my downvoting is not a subject of legal/moderation norms. If you feel need to reference legal norms, you may take “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”.