Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fake_William_Shatner t1_j74fi55 wrote

Reply to comment by FacelessFellow in ChatGPT: Use of AI chatbot in Congress and court rooms raises ethical questions by mossadnik

No, it isn't like saying that.

With 2+2 you already KNOW the answer. It's 4. You already know the inputted data is perfect.

Creating an AI to make decisions is drawing from HUMAN sources.

And, I think your idea that "objective reality" and "facts" are certain is not really a good take. We don't even observe all of reality. Or perceptions and what we choose to pay attention to are framed by our biases. And programming an AI requires we know what those are and know what data to feed it to learn from.

FACTS are just data. The are interpreted. "TRUTH" is based on the viewer's priorities and understanding of the world. The facts can be proven, but, which facts to use? And TRUTH is a variable and different for everyone who says they know it.

8

FacelessFellow t1_j74vfea wrote

You don’t think there’s an objective truth/reality?

That’s a mind blowing concept for me.

−1

Fake_William_Shatner t1_j76u03l wrote

You can't really join the ranks of the wise people until you understand this. You don't think people with different perspectives and life histories and fortunes see a different "reality?"

If you get depressed -- doesn't that change what you see? If you take hallucinogenics, that alters your perspective. Your state of mind will interpret and experience life. Do you know if you are rich or poor until you have knowledge of what other people have or don't have?

Can you see the phone signals in the air, or do you ONLY get the phone call intended for you? You answer a call, and speak to someone -- you now have a different perspective and slice of reality than other people. Without the phone with that one number -- you walk around as if nothing was there. But, that data is there and ONLY affects some people.

Do you see in all of the EM spectrum? No. Visible light is a very small slice of it. If you had infrared or ultraviolet goggles, you would suddenly have information about your environment other people don't. Profoundly color blind people -- don't see the Green or the Red traffic lights except by position. Someone who sees colors might forget if the Red light is on the bottom or the top - -they take it for granted that they can tell. And the blind now have auditory signals at the street level -- their "knowledge" of the reality sighted people have of the same environment has changed for the better in that regard.

That's the challenge of data and science and especially statistics; what do you measure? What is significant to evaluate is a choice. And your view of reality is always in context of the framework you have from society, your situation, your "luck", your state of mind.

A nice sunny day, and one person gets a phone call that their mother has died -- it's a different reality and "truth."

So, I hope you continue experimenting with this notion that there is not and never has been one reality because we all have a different perspective and we can't all look at the entire thing. We can't all hear it. We can't all feel it. We interpret the data differently and choose different parts to evaluate.

1

FacelessFellow t1_j770iej wrote

So atomic mass is subjective? The table of elements is subjective?

Your comment just made it sound like a perspective thing. It’s sounds like it’s all about people and their subjective reality.

Objectively, an atom has so many electrons. Or does the number of electrons change depending on who is observing?

If I put 3 eggs on the table, it will be 3 eggs for someone else. Even if they’re blind, they can touch the eggs. Or be told by someone that it’s 3 eggs. I don’t see what can change the fact that there’s 3 eggs on the counter.

1

Fake_William_Shatner t1_j77sjzw wrote

>So atomic mass is subjective? The table of elements is subjective?

So you can't compare SOCIAL ENGINEERING to something that is subjective -- you want to compare it to atomic mass?

There's no point discussing things with a person who breaks so many rules of logic.

>It’s sounds like it’s all about people and their subjective reality.

Yes. Like your reality where you think Atomic mass being a stable number everyone can determine ALSO covers whether they think their outfit makes them look fat.

There is "objective reality" -- well, as far as you know, so far, with humanity's limited perception of the Universe. But, people interpret everything. Some people do not eat eggs because they are Vegan. 3 Eggs is objective fact. The "Truth" that what you gave me is a good thing, is an interpretation. And you assume how other people think based on your experience.

Reality and truth are subjective as hell. Facts are data points and can be accurate, but WHICH FACTS are we considering? "FACT; there are three eggs -- I win!" Okay, what were the rules? "That's a secret."

1