Citing “lived experience” as evidence something works is literally the tactic of homeopaths and antivaxxers when confronted by large-scale or structured studies disproving their claims.
-
@baldur homeopaths are attacking you too, it's just in very small amounts.
-
Also, I warned about exactly this – that "AI" fans risked getting pulled into the same kind of mindset and false ideas as naturopaths and homeopaths – over a year ago under the heading "Self-experimenting with psychological hazards is always a bad idea"
The usual suspects responded with something along the lines of "well that makes me a proud naturopath"
@baldur the problem with lived experience is it never scales symmetrically
-
Citing “lived experience” as evidence something works is literally the tactic of homeopaths and antivaxxers when confronted by large-scale or structured studies disproving their claims. That this now seems to be the go-to argument of the pro-“AI” crowd is a huge red flag.
@baldur Anectdotic evidence is no evidence at all.
-
Did not expect this to draw out the antivaxx crowd, but I should have. What a world we live in.
@baldur each time this happens the defederation lists get richer.
Edit: wow, I had 53 accounts stored from this one nazi instance... Good riddance!
-
Citing “lived experience” as evidence something works is literally the tactic of homeopaths and antivaxxers when confronted by large-scale or structured studies disproving their claims. That this now seems to be the go-to argument of the pro-“AI” crowd is a huge red flag.
@baldur it’s also an entirely valid statement, enabling minority communities to express their struggle with racism and marginalization.
The fact that the pro-AI community, and frankly also the anti-vaxxers, have co-opted it is an insult to its origins. It’s at the same time making fun of the minority communities who used it as a plea for empathy and understanding, and stealing its power and trying to co-opt it to manipulate and influence. All in all reprehensible.
-
@baldur homeopaths are attacking you too, it's just in very small amounts.
-
@baldur homeopaths are attacking you too, it's just in very small amounts.
-
@baldur homeopaths are attacking you too, it's just in very small amounts.
-
Citing “lived experience” as evidence something works is literally the tactic of homeopaths and antivaxxers when confronted by large-scale or structured studies disproving their claims. That this now seems to be the go-to argument of the pro-“AI” crowd is a huge red flag.
Any excuse to post this experimental scientific rebuttal of homeopathy. I particularly like how he skewers them on the spit of their own batshit crazy protocols. It's 'the memory of piss' to paraphrase one homeopathic justification.
-
@baldur the problem with lived experience is it never scales symmetrically
@cyberquixote @baldur the problem with "lived experience" is that it is by definition subjective, not verifiable, doesn't transfer, and is possibly just bullshit.
Remember: homeopathy works, because placebos work.
There are actual scientific studies that prove that not taking any medicine can make you better, EVEN IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE TAKING A PLACEBO!
It's the typical arrogance of the tech world, who think they are exempt from psychological effects that provably affect every human.
-
Citing “lived experience” as evidence something works is literally the tactic of homeopaths and antivaxxers when confronted by large-scale or structured studies disproving their claims. That this now seems to be the go-to argument of the pro-“AI” crowd is a huge red flag.
@baldur the corporate software world always seemed to have trouble with defining things like quality or productivity. They have tried tools like coverage, cyclomatic complexity, velocity or lines of code but they're all not really adequate. That means it's no wonder that they have to benchmark LLMs based on feels. And that is what the tech firms sell. The outputs are ever more verbose and mimic thought processes in their form. That feels smart even though it isn't. The feeling of productivity.
-
Also, I warned about exactly this – that "AI" fans risked getting pulled into the same kind of mindset and false ideas as naturopaths and homeopaths – over a year ago under the heading "Self-experimenting with psychological hazards is always a bad idea"
The usual suspects responded with something along the lines of "well that makes me a proud naturopath"
@baldur
Amazing article, thank you very much for writing and sharing! -
@Lucillevalentine @EvolLove @baldur Pureblood is a synonym for inbred, I guess
-
Did not expect this to draw out the antivaxx crowd, but I should have. What a world we live in.
Every modern book on smallpox has the same warning against trusting lived experience and falling for the fallacy of eradication.
The persistent anti-vaxx, anti-mask and anti-lockdown disinformation ops are a small part of a post-truth world being crafted.
-
@Lucillevalentine @EvolLove @baldur Pureblood is a synonym for inbred, I guess
@goedelchen @EvolLove @baldur I shudder. I found myself wanting to agree, then realized that responding to their signal flags in any way requires me to understand them a bit.
-
@baldur the corporate software world always seemed to have trouble with defining things like quality or productivity. They have tried tools like coverage, cyclomatic complexity, velocity or lines of code but they're all not really adequate. That means it's no wonder that they have to benchmark LLMs based on feels. And that is what the tech firms sell. The outputs are ever more verbose and mimic thought processes in their form. That feels smart even though it isn't. The feeling of productivity.
@chris @baldur Unfortunately lack of valid metrics isn't just confined to corporate software, it's baked into software development culture. While the anti-metrics stance in software culture stems from corporate abuses, it really hurts us in the long run in our ability to choose the best software technology for our application needs.
-
Citing “lived experience” as evidence something works is literally the tactic of homeopaths and antivaxxers when confronted by large-scale or structured studies disproving their claims. That this now seems to be the go-to argument of the pro-“AI” crowd is a huge red flag.
Some idiots did believe and trusted vaccines.
"Another administration would have taken 3, 4, 5, maybe even up to 10 years to develop a vaccine. We did in nine months." #traitor47 -farewell
Helped that it was already developed, why else say it will just go away or make a mockery of science?
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
