|
|
|
|
|
|
by reissbaker
654 days ago
|
|
|
Sorry, but saying "I bet this would work" does not mean I have to come up with a theoretical foundation for disproving the existence of machine learning models ever being capable of doing things, theoretical models which even the top labs in the world are incapable of producing. This is the hypothesis stage; there is no burden of proof. If I said "I proved this would work," naturally there would be a burden of evidence. That is not where we are. You are arguing with a hypothesis; and your argument does not hold water ("If this was possible someone would have already done it"). That does not mean the hypothesis is true, it only means you haven't falsified it. |
|
|
> That does not mean the hypothesis is true, it only means you haven't falsified it.
Correct. You can't prove a negative, you've only just figured this out? After I listed TWO simple examples that could be found in an introductory philosophy class?! In the Wikipedia article consisting of a couple of paragraphs I linked you?
PLEASE JUST READ. PLEASE JUST READ. PLEASE JUST READ. PLEASE JUST READ.
You can't prove negative statements. I want you to admit this so I know you understand, now repeat after me: "You can't prove negative statements."
I know this is likely wasted on you, but here goes:
You can't prove the hypothesis: "There does not exist an unobservable teapot in the orbit of Jupiter."
For the SAME reason I can't prove the hypothesis: "LLMs can never eventually be used for generating good incident reports."
For the SAME reason I can't prove the hypothesis: "God doesn't exist."
For the SAME reason I can't prove the hypothesis: "A unicorn does not exist at the center of the Earth."
I fully admit this in the comment you've supposedly read.
This is why the burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim (this is you).