aussie_punmaster t1_j0nea6k wrote on December 18, 2022 at 12:03 AM

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

>>Dude if it is clear to you and not clear to me, it damn literally means it is unclear because the people disagree on the interpretation. Your is missing the "last time I met the group of people who are searching", which could possibly be minutes ago, hours ago or even yesterday.

The absence of the lines you mention are part of the inference. If there is a meaningful gap between when the person sourced their information and when they’re reporting it, the expectation is it is included. If we’re talking about a lost child and my information is hours out of date I don’t just say “They’re still looking”, I say “They were still looking when I last heard 5 hours ago”. It’s truly inconceivable that with a child missing that’s the way that discussion would go with outdated information.

>> Oh now we switch to personal attacks? How about I call you a moron, cause you can't grasp that if two seemingly not stupid people disagree about a statement, it can not possibly be "clear"?

One person disagreeing is not a sufficient threshold for clarity. Otherwise nothing would ever be clear. Survey some people, see what answers you get.

>> I can see that you fail to separate slightly complicated abstractions. For instance, in your example you confuse objective truth and the information that a message conveys.

I’m not saying the two examples are the same. I was taking the argument to the absurd to show that one person’s unclear doesn’t invalidate a truth. It ignores the possibility of a person being incorrect.

lostmsu t1_j1t7nph wrote on December 27, 2022 at 5:09 AM

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 my information is hours out of date I don’t just say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

aussie_punmaster t1_j1w351b wrote on December 27, 2022 at 8:57 PM

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.

lostmsu t1_j1x7gfr wrote on December 28, 2022 at 1:45 AM

>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.