falter in resolute

Read the full article at… Fiction's Narrative. And follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days

Read the full article at… AI as Training Wheels. And follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days

Read the full article at... No Choices in a Vacuum. And follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days...

Read the bite-sized article at…

Follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days. Or visit…

Follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days. Or visit...

Follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days. Or visit...

Follow for new bite-sized philosophy articles every few days. Or visit...

Follow for new byte-sized philosophy articles every few days. Or visit...

Follow for new byte-sized philosophy articles every few days. Or visit ...

Large language models, like ChatGPT and Google Bard, can interpret your sentences and give you intelligently formulated answers.

The problem with large language models is that they hallucinate as well.

Instead of calculation and reduction, these AI models use something more akin to inference and approximation.

They’re not directly accessing data, but rather…

They’ve absorbed it,

reconfigured it,

discarded their sources,

and added the ideas as a bias to their existing understanding.

They’re poised to replace human faculty while confidently and blindly feeding you misinformation.

Humans, however…

only say things they can 100% validate.

Humans only believe things they have or remember their sources for.

And luckily, humans only act confidently when their sources are validated.

The problem, really, with large language models, is that they wax lyrical just as loosely as humans do.

And they just as easily buy into their own bullshit.

The upside is that we don’t.

The upside is that we set them a higher bar.

So far.

---

More articles at:

The real world is infinite, but we can only test theories against limited samples.

We can’t test every permutation. We can’t run experiments for unending amounts of time. And there’s no gamemaster to confirm when we’ve guessed correctly.

When the answer holds, then, it merely means it was accurate enough to predict the outcomes so far. All we actually know is, we haven’t proved it wrong yet.

That’s inherent to empirical evidence, we can’t get to the truth, we can only refine our approximation of it.

We used to be the centre of the universe. And then Physics and Astronomy showed us we were on one planet in one of many galaxies.

Archaeology and Biology show us we’re a subset of animals that simply happened to evolve the most advanced brains. We’re made of molecules and particles, and energy, just like all other things.

We seem to be getting off our pedestal.

Yet Quantum Physics theories today tell us that properties of sub-atomic particles are undefined until we observe them. That nothing is set until our measurements.

What makes us so special? Is Quantum Physics putting us at the centre of the universe again?