[deleted]

Finally! Proof!

The way we currently use AI is to write paragraphs ourselves and then only use AI to reformulate it using more accessible language. If you go back in the blog, all older articles are written entirely or mostly by humans (and much weaker AI), and the core difference is only the clarity of expression, not any difference in semantics. We would not use AI to express ideas that differ from our own, we really only use it to reformulate into more easily accessible language. This is how we advocate for using AI in writing currently.

We distance ourselves from using AI as a "replacement" for genuine thought--instead it is meant to bridge the gap between different recipients and to navigate the complex web of human natural language. The semantics are human-driven, what is curated is only our communication with the AI to serve ultimately human needs. We could have illustrated this aspect more clearly in the article, since it seemed too focused on "AI being great", but ofc this is in the context of AI ultimately serving humans. Here is an indirect follow-up article in case you are interested:

https://absolutenegation.wordpress.com/2023/02/28/writing-and-anxiety/

>information cascades

I think this term and concept will be very useful to me. Thanks for sharing!

Science never promised to be correct now it's just more correct than any other method of determining fact.

> Sometimes you can outperform "science" by following scientific principles instead of looking at what groups of scientists say

And sometimes using a magic 8 ball to guide your life will work out.

Or, instead of going by what scientists say, which is dumb, you go by what they can prove and what evidence they provide.

Where did you live that “lockdowns” were in place?

I have no issue with scientific inquiry, and if you carefully read my comment you'll notice most of the problem is with the word "eventual" here. Sometimes you can outperform "science" by following scientific principles instead of looking at what groups of scientists say; nullius in verba, after all. Also, Lysenkoism, if you want a citation of the opposite. Sure, that wasn't science but state power, but where in the world does science operate without state power influencing it?

>it's why plate tectonics took so long to dislodge earlier shittier theories despite the strong evidence, for example.

I love it when people argue against the eventual correctness of science by citing a time science stopped being wrong and started being correct.

Never mind they never have an alternative to scientific inquiry. Yes it's flawed but it's the least flawed and most effective avenue of investigation. Wait did I say "love"? I mean "loath".

[removed]

My point all along is discussion is important, especially with anything science based. The scientific method requires it. The specifics about Covid aren’t as important as the squashing of debate.

Where there's smoke there's fire (i.e. many people saying the same thing needs to be explained). Arguments like "surely that many people can't be wrong" or "they came to their conclusions mostly independently" are often implied but not stated. To refute those, learning about the phenomenon of information cascades is very helpful; it explains how large fractions of the population can end up believing something based on very little evidence.

The tl;dr is that if, for a particular decision, only the decision is visible and not the detailed reasoning/evidence/information, and a large majority values "social proof" or conformity more than their private information, then their private information doesn't get incorporated into the public set of information, so only the very early people who decide first get to define that public set. It's a very "sticky" process. For example, consider people in a crowd deciding whether to panic: One or two people possibly saw something concerning and screamed or ran; then, later people react less to the actual seen thing (or lack of it), and more to the number of other people reacting or not reacting. The early or closest people get to set the "tone" - if there's no reaction from others, you infer it was not worth panicking after all, and don't join, strengthening that impression; if there is, you infer it was, and join in. That can easily end up causing panics out of nowhere, or not causing panics when you'd expect them.

Once you know this, it's easy to see how millions of people can be wrong, and how the "wisdom of crowds" fails to work in such cases. Then, however, you also need to make sure the scientists themselves don't suffer from an information cascade, and they usually do - they didn't all arrive at their opinions independently from scratch. New information being available and undoing a wrong cascade partially explains Kuhn's paradigm shifts. Even in the hard sciences, the social environment can become so bad that scientists conform to fashions when they shouldn't, for no good reason - it's why plate tectonics took so long to dislodge earlier shittier theories despite the strong evidence, for example.

So there's no real way to tell which ideas like homeopathy do or don't work based solely on judging their disparity in popularity among different crowds (at least not without risking being fooled that way); you have to reason about them, at least a little bit. Or trust that experts will usually get it right regardless, which is reasonable, but not foolproof.

I absolutely agree that many folks were far too militant about this, but to be fair, we were living through (and perhaps still are) a potential existential crisis, and most of the folks on the other side ranged from highly irresponsible to batshit insane.

In regards to the lab leak hypothesis, I'm no expert, but based on my personal research, it does seem to have way more merit than the mainstream opinion would lead you to believe, but at the time, investigating it wasn't as important as handling the crisis itself.

As for natural immunity, yes, it turned out to be more effective in most ways, but it obviously poses a much higher risk. Also, taking the vaccine in addition to natural immunity proved to be the best option, so it's a very poor excuse for rallying against the vaccine.

I agree with your overall point in regards to the value of free speech, but the devil is in the details.

Are quarantines effective when there's people nit following guidelines? Not as much.

People who want evidence, watch the covid numbers rise and fall in places as mask mandates were lifted and reinstated.

There's no way to show evidence that can convince folks who are already choosing to ignore them for the sake of what they want to see..

My side is that anyone that questioning the government/media line was ridiculed instead of examining the facts. From calling lab leak hypothesis racist to labeling the questioning of mask usage as science heretics. One of the biggest was denying natural immunity as equal/superior to vaccination. I was vaccinated. But I value real science that allows discussion instead of some quasi religious following of kneejerk “science edicts” by people who won’t allow medical discussion/observations of people in the medical field. Whatever happened to - it’s ok to get a 2nd opinion?

Correct most bad claims like a flying teapot actually have strong evidence against them as well. But the point is meant to harp on unfalsifiable claims.

The problem is that you cannot demonstrate an invisible physics defying teapot is not out there ... its unfalsifiable. You cannot use physics to disprove it... my claims is that it defies physics... etc.

We have extreme amounts if rock solid actual empirical evidence we do not live in a firmament... or flying winged horses... or raising people from the dead... etc is not even reasonably possible... But the problem is unfalsifiable claims. Example I claim physics was different back then... or this horse transcended physics... or the person raising people from the dead could transcend reality. They use some sort of special pleading, I cannot ever prove impossible, and its not even reasonable to expect anyone to debunk these ideas... The only reasonable null hypothesis is non acceptance...

Correct i am not just agnostic towards flying teapots in orbit around earth... I actively have evidence against it, and have knowledge towards its improbability. But the idea is more about staying skeptical and how trivially and useless unfalsifiable, supernatural, or magical claims are. That said... if you can prove em.... go ahead but a massive burden is on you.

edit: While the teapot isn't completely unfalsifiable... and you can talk about levels of unfalsifiability. The burden of proof, a null hypothesis, and skepticism towards wild claims is whats important.

I indeed did jump to conclusions and may have ended up misconstruing you, as a result. I did say that it was a guess, though.

If that is the case, feel free to clarify your side of the argument.

All good, I thought as much - but figured I'd clarify just be to be sure.

I agree with you. I put you in quotation marks to try and indicate I wasn't really directing my comment at you necessarily.

I can't speak on behalf of this particular person, but the point I'm making is that, most of the covid naysayers have been leaning on the fact that they were right about a thing or two (for all the wrong reasons, of course) to act vindictive and push their agenda, in standard bad faith-fueled conspiracy theorist fashion.

In toast we trust :p

I'm not even asking that it be demonstrated just that it be demonstrated to be possible. That there be a coherent world history that could have created the situation. Perhaps there's an alien teapot out there in orbit but I think there is strong evidence to support the idea that a human teapot cannot be out there.

Its not perfect

But an important thought process to understand reasonable claims.

Hey im not gonna say 'there cannot be a teapot in space' or 'there are no teapots out there'... But a reasomable skeptical mind is not gonna accept that claim till its demonstrated

You're not making an argument though. If you'd like to debate you need to be saying something beyond "Waaah there's no debate going on! Waaaah"

Things aren't always what they seem my friend!

They are exactly how they seem in regards to this though.

Not quite as effective is very different from "proven false" though so "you'd" be moving goalposts.