|
|
|
|
|
|
by nonameiguess
1035 days ago
|
|
|
> "The 2020 usa election legitimate", "trans women are women", "communism is better than capitalism". Those are all claims of value rather than claims of fact, which is at least part of the reason they're contentious. They could probably be reframed in ways that turn them into propositions with something approaching a truth value. "Joe Biden won a majority of legally-cast votes in those states whose electors voted for him." "Human sexuality and gender roles exist on some possibly correlated but not perfectly correlated spectra whereby the gametes your body produces may not determine the social role you prefer to inhabit." "Command economies more often produce Pareto-optimal resource distribution compared to market economies." Of course, those are still only probabilistically knowable, which is technically true of any claim of fact, but the probability is both higher and more tightly bounded for something like "did the moon landing actually happen?" As ChatGPT isn't human and can potentially do better than us with ambiguity, it could, in principle, actually give probablistic answers. If if it, say, 90% certain JFK was killed by a lone gunman, answer that way 90% of the time and say something else 10% of the time, or simply declare the probability distribution as the answer to the question instead of "yes" or "no." Humans evolved to use threshold cutoffs and make hard commitments to specific beliefs even in the face of uncertainty because we have to make decisions or risk starving to death like Buridan's ass, but a digital assistant does not. |
|
|
Surely it's the opposite? As ChatGPT isn't human, hasn't seen any video, visited any sites or had any experience of ballistics and is simply inferring connections between "JFK", "gunmen" and "grassy knolls" and a question about probability from its model of human texts, it has no novel insight into the probability of a second gunmen [but can hallucinate the probability on demand. You can get variety in answers by turning the temperature up, but the underlying distribution is the distribution of human writing on the subject included in its corpus, adjusted by answers rejected in training. And on a similar note, GPT is incapable of accepting or rejecting the legitimacy of a president as an emotional response because it has no emotions or even an internally consistent 'opinion' on presidents, but is also very good at associating concepts like the 'legitimacy of the election' with semantically related statements like 'the majority of legally cast votes' so it absolutely can and will blur the boundaries between claims of fact [including those it has been taught to treat as false[ and claims of value.