Isn't that simply because when we find such exceptions, we change the laws? — Banno

Perhaps that happens sometimes. If there were no regularities, there would be no laws. It doesn't follow from the fact that there are laws that our understanding of them is perfect. Anyway, what I have in mind are the most general regularities such as that fire burns, water flows down hill absent intervention, the Sun rises, organisms grow old and die, wind and water cause erosion, animals need oxygen and water and food to survive, the air is thinner at high altitudes, most objects cannot float in the air and the reason that those which can float is easily understandable, and so on. There are countless examples.

I guess I’m naïve or maybe just not very perceptive, but I haven’t recognized any posts definitely written by AI. — T Clark

I can't say I know they were written by AI, but merely that I have suspected it. The main reason I would discourage its use is that the rapid development of AI, which given the unpredictability of the ways in which AI will evolve, is dangerous, is driven by profit, and is fueled mainly by consumer use. The best way to slow down this development, which would be hopefully much safer, would be for consumers to abstain from using it. I never have and never will knowingly use it. I see it as a very dangerous case of playing with fire.

Interesting, I haven’t noticed particularly. But I avoid reading lengthy and didactic posts which are often poorly written. The AI stuff I’ve seen often seems peculiarly worded and difficult to read. — Tom Storm

I suspect AI use when I see a sudden vast improvement in writing clarity and structure and apparent erudition.

But you're proposing something and instead of telling us why it's a good proposal you're saying "if you want reasons, go and find out yourself." This is not persuasive. — Jamal

That's a fair criticism, I guess. I don't really have the time to spare to takes notes of lectures and produce a really comprehensive summary of the potential problems. It is very easy for anyone to find out for themselves if they are interested. I'll try to make the effort as soon as possible. (Maybe in the interests of performative contradiction, I should ask an AI to produce a summary for me).

And it isn't clear precisely what you are proposing. What does it mean to ban the use of LLMs? If you mean the use of them to generate the content of your posts, that's already banned — although it's not always possible to detect LLM-generated text, and it will become increasingly impossible. If you mean using them to research or proof-read your posts, that's impossible to ban, not to mention misguided. — Jamal

It is obviously not practicable to enforce a complete ban. We would be, as we are now with a limited ban, actually relying on people's honesty. If by "proof-read" you only mean checking for spelling and grammatical errors, then no problem. That said, we already have spellchecker for that. Asking AI to rewrite material would seem to be a different matter. It seems obvious to me that AIs pose a great threat to human creativity.

I've been able to detect some of them because I know what ChatGPT's default style looks like (annoyingly, it uses a lot of em dashes, like I do myself). But it's trivially easy to make an LLM's generated output undetectable, by asking it to alter its style. So although I still want to enforce the ban on LLM-generated text, a lot of it will slip under the radar. — Jamal

I use a lot of em dashes myself, and I've never noticed it with AI-generated text. I agree that much will slip under the radar, but on the other hand I like to think that a majority of posters value honesty.

It cannot be avoided, and it has great potential both for benefit and for harm. We need to reduce the harm by discussing and formulating good practice (and then producing a dedicated guide to the use of AI in the Help section). — Jamal

The problem I see is that if everyone uses AI its development will be profit driven, and it will thus not be judiciously developed.

The source of one's post is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is logically sound or not. — Harry Hindu

I don't agree—"one's post"?...if one is not the source of the post, then it is not one's post.

I see this from time to time. One I'm thinking of tries to baffle with bullshit. Best to walk away, right? — frank

Sure, but walking away does not solve, or even ameliorate, the problem.

I think the crux is that whenever a new technology arises we just throw up our hands and give in. "It's inevitable - there's no point resisting!" This means that each small opportunity where resistance is possible is dismissed, and most every opportunity for resistance is small. But I have to give TPF its due. It has resisted by adding a rule against AI. It is not dismissing all of the small opportunities. Still, the temptation to give ourselves a pass when it comes to regulating these technologies is difficult to resist. — Leontiskos

We perhaps don't often agree, but it seems we do on this one.

Anyway, there is an 8 hour power outage where I live, and I am running the generator, so I'll have to leave it for now.

The problem is that you don't think you are required to give a falsifiable reason for why the claim fails to demonstrate the presence of X. — Leontiskos

Give me an example of a racist claim that does demonstrate X (X being clear evidence, or even a compelling argument, that some race is tout court, inferior to some other) if you think there are such.

If someone gives an argument purporting to demonstrate that some race is inferior I will give reasons for rejecting it if I assess that it does fail to demonstrate what it claims to. I haven't even come across any argument which is not in the form of 'this race is, according to IQ tests, generally less intelligent than that race". Intelligence seems to be the one ubiquitous criterion in these kinds of arguments. Firstly, even if that was true that some race was IQ inferior, it doesn't make them tout court inferior, just IQ inferior. Do you think those people who have the highest IQs are necessarily the best people? Do you think IQ id even an adequate measure of intelligence? What about creativity or emotional intelligence or memory? What about the ability for sustained attention?

Do you know of arguments that take any other form? How would you go about demonstrating general inferiority, as opposed to say inferiority in sport, academic achievement or some such, all of which could in any case be down to standards of training, funding etc.?

Are we to assume that you think some races are all-in-all inferior? If so, why not present your argument for our perusal. If not, then why go on about it?

If you look at traditional accounts of "enlightenment", "enlightenment" is not something one would normally desire, ever, because for all practical intents and purposes, "enlightenment" is a case of self-annihilation, self-abolishment. — baker

That's one interpretation.

While it is said that if a lay person does attain "enlightenment", they have to ordain as a monastic within a few days or they die (!!), because an enlightened person is not able to live in this world, as they lack the drive and the ability to make a living. — baker

It depends on what is meant by "enlightenment". Ramana Maharshi reportedly became spontaneously enlightened as a schoolboy, then left home on a train to Arunachala (a sacred mountain if I recall correctly), where he was found starving and covered with ants. People then fed him and treated him as a sage.



The Shivapuri Baba is a very different case—he had heaps of motivation, after leaving his family and becoming enlightened in the forest according to reports he walked form India to England.

Han Shan lived by himself on Cold Mountain, and survived just fine for many years.

I think there is much of mythology in all this.

Why call something "Buddhist" when it has nothing to do with Buddhism? — baker

What gets called "Buddhist" that has nothing to do with Buddhism. Do you fancy yourself to know what the essence of Buddhism is?

Is the most important thing we can do in this life to deny its value in favour of an afterlife, an afterlife which can never be known to be more than a conjecture at best, and a fantasy at worst? There seems to be a certain snobbishness, a certain classism, at play in these kinds of attitudes.
This sounds rather victim-ish. — baker

What are you talking about—why "victim-ish"? It seems more likely that you are projecting your own victimhood.

One problem with that is that the watered down versions are being promoted as the real thing, and can eventually even replace it.
— baker

What you say assumes what is at issue—that there really is is a "real thing" to be found.
— Janus
I said more later in the post you quoted. — baker

I couldn't find the "more" you said you said.

In Buddhism, there is the theme that we are now living in an age in which the Dharma ends: — baker

So what? Who's to say that's true?

Although we already live in a mediocre time regarding art, AI would be the last nail of our coffin. But it is not too late—we can stop it and believe in ourselves again. — javi2541997

I agree with what you write there except for the above. I don't think we live in a "mediocre time" regarding art, and I do believe it is probably too late to stop the AI juggernaut. As I said above I refuse to use AI for either research or writing. It is only a juggernaut because people will not refrain from using it; the temptation for people to save time and/or make themselves look better and smarter is too great. I don't think they appreciate the possible dangers, which are far greater than devaluing human creativity.

From my perspective, the biggest dangers from AI are the abilities to create new ways of killing people. — EricH

This is just one of the very serious possibilities. A layman biochemist with AI help might be able to create a lethal new virus for example. It is not a matter of fearmongering—we should all be very afraid. The solution is simple—stop using AI, and the financial incentive to develop it will evaporate. The military incentive will unfortunately remain. I hold little hope that people will wake up and stop using it anyway.

I think what it comes down to is that it depends on how it's used. This is where it gets interesting. — Jamal

Nope. It just shouldn't be used because it is evolving much faster than our ability to understand it and predict where its evolution will lead. For the first time we are confronted with how to deal with an intelligence far greater than our own. I don't think it's going to end well.

OK, thanks...good luck with your project.

Cheers, some interesting things to think about there. I'm not very well-schooled in these kinds of things, but some of it seems to make intuitive sense. I don't have anything further to say right now.

I'm wondering whether you use AIs to help you write.

Am I to understand that you are saying the laws of nature are not merely codifications of natural invariances and their attributes, but are the invariances themselves?

For example, would you say the law of gravity is not merely a codification of the apparent spatiotemporal universality of gravitational effects, but the gravitational effects themselves, along with their mathematically quantifiable attributes?

:up:

Right, the idea that the "laws" evolved has intuitive appeal. I never found the idea that they are given from above convincing.

Perhaps I should consider myself lucky I have a sketchy grounding in formal logic.

Why would I have to show X is absent if the claim relies on X, but does not demonstrate it's presence?

So someone can't objectively identify when X is present because to do so is impossible, but you are able to objectively identify when X is absent? Again, this makes no sense. Is it the unfalsifiable sophistry coming up again. — Leontiskos

If they can't show X is present their claim is vacuous. I don't have to show X is absent.

The sophistry is yours.

If you are making a claim that says, "no, not tout court inferior," and the racist is making a claim that says, "yes, tout court inferior," and you say that "tout court inferior" is as subjective as the color claim, then both of you are making merely subjective claims, and neither one of you has any rational basis for enforcing your claim. — Leontiskos

Not true. "Tout court inferior" is a mere subjective claim masquerading as an objective claim. "Not tout court inferior" is not a subjective claim but a refutation of the masquerade.

On your reasoning if we found an alien species, how would we know how to treat it? — Leontiskos

I don't agree with enslaving any species.

I'm trying to make sense of this in a 2 step process, because it avoids directly leaping from a set of evidence of past things to claims about the future, without any clear reason. Laws of nature provide the reason. — Relativist

But are laws of nature not codifications of observed invariances? That's just what I meant by saying that we know (or have every reason to believe at least) that past futures have resembled past pasts. It's just another way of saying that we have every reason to believe that nature's invariances have not been contravened in the documented past (at least).

I could have also mentioned the huge consistent and coherent body of knowledge and understanding called science, which is all based on the observation and modeling of observed invariances and regularities, as explained in more detail by

Wet is not the same as liquid, yet they are physically inseparable. Likewise, existents (i.e. things, facts) are discrete properties (i.e. events, fluctuations) of existence. — 180 Proof

:up: Yep, more good examples.

Why is it unsupportable? You simply ask the claimant what they mean by "superior" and go from there. — Leontiskos

Any support they come up with will necessarily be merely subjective, while it purports to be a universally valid claim. That's waht I mean by unsupportable.

Thus if there is some race which is equivalent to a beast, such as an ox, then that race can be permissibly enslaved. We would be able to provide the racist with a falsifiable case, "Okay racist, so if you can demonstrate that this race has no greater dignity than an ox, then you will have proved that it is permissible to enslave them." — Leontiskos

Such a race would obviously not be human. And you are assuming that it is permissible to enslave oxen. What could enslaving a race that itself has no concept of, or sense of, being enslaved even mean? Do we enslave oxen, or merely employ them?

I agree with you... @unenlightened is blowing the smoke of mere logical possibility. We know that past futures have all resembled past pasts, we have no well-documented occurrences of exceptions to nature's "laws" (invariance), so it is not irrational to believe the future will continue to resemble the past.

So consider two charges:

"Your position is unverifiable."
"Your position is unsupportable." — Leontiskos

My position is merely a rejection of an unverifiable, unsupportable position. It is obviously neither empirically nor logically falsifiable because we here are in the realm of values, not of facts or deductive logic. Values are subjective, that is they cannot be rationally universalized.
Think of the claim that red is a superior colour to green. I reject that because it is unsupportable, If I say there are no sound criteria for considering red to be superior to green, is that claim falsifiable?

That is an anti-racist claim, and we are asking whether it is falsifiable. It seems that you and baker have missed the whole point. I am asking whether @Janus' anti-racist claim is falsifiable, given that Janus has said that falsifiability is the key to rationality and claim-making. — Leontiskos

It's not that anti-racist claims are falsifiable. The anti-racist claim is made on the basis of the unverifiability, the complete lack of supportability ("there are no sound criteria...") of the racist claim.

They are separate in the same sense that a true fact, 2+2=4, is "separate from" truth. — Colo Millz

But again there is no truth without true facts, or true facts without truth—so I'm not seeing any genuine separation. A possible conceptual distinction does not entail real separation.

In this sense, JTB+U performs a Wittgensteinian clarification: it dissolves the illusion that justification alone guarantees comprehension. “U” distinguishes genuine justification from parroting, algorithmic correctness, or social conformity. Philosophically, that difference is now urgent—especially in an age where machines can simulate justification without understanding.

This is important, because it's easy to suppose your point is correct. — Sam26

I've taken a while to respond, because there is a fair bit of subtlety, nuance in this question about understanding. I agree one cannot be justified in believing something without understanding how the justification works—that is, understanding how the (purported) facts that constitute the justification entail the belief.

Someone could parrot an explanation of how a belief is justified without really 'getting' the explanation. It is very difficult, though, to say just what "getting" an explanation consists in other than the feeling or sense of getting it.

In What Computers Can't Do and What Computers Still Can't Do Hubert Dreyfus argued that computers will never be genuinely intelligent because they cannot understand context.

Yet the LLMs do seem to be able to do that, even though I cannot imagine how it would possible that they do that. Is it just a matter of parroting so sophisticated as to be able to fool us into thinking they do understand context?

It begs the question as to how we grasp context, and I don't have an answer for that, but can only think that it must somehow be a matter of feeling. I can't imagine a computer having a feeling for context—but then what do I know?

Anyway...interesting stuff!

Beings are not separate from being, and being is not separate from beings. Sure, we can draw a conceptual distinction between being and beings, but it doesn't seem to follow that being can be without beings or that beings can be without being.

It certainly seems to me something interesting to explore, but as you no doubt know, I am not well-schooled in formal logic.

I am also interested in semiotics, but having a few other non-philosophical interests and commitments which are important to me, what I really need is more time if I want to gain more than a superficial understanding of these things.

I suspect we are emphasising different aspects of the same issues, and that we do not have an actual disagreement. What do you think? — Banno

I think that is probably right. I've been watching a lecture by Russell on YouTube—finding it interesting, but there's a lot to wrap my head around.

That's an interesting account that certainly seems to make sense. If we are in the evolutionary middle, so to speak, does it seem plausible to think we in a stable era where the invariances are not likely to suddenly radically change?

I could reframe the question—if in logic something's being true entails other things being true (at least sometimes) can the same be said of reality? That is if something obtains is it ever necessary that other things will also obtain?

I agree. However, we could draw inferences about the nature of reality by examining the past, and apply that analysis (that model of reality) to making predictions. This is, of course, the nature of physics. — Relativist

Yes, and as I said earlier, such examining is all we have to go on, and so it is rational to base our inferences on that observation and its understanding and apply that analysis to making predictions. This is the nature of, not only physics, but science generally. I think this puts to rest the problem of induction.

Note that your examples concern our beliefs. There's a difference between the past constraining the future, and the past constraining our beliefs about the future. Bayesian calculus only allows the latter.

The other is Gillian Russell's recent work on logic, just mentioned. That is about the world rather than about our beliefs. — Banno

the idea that the past constrains the future relies on the idea that the '"laws of nature" may evolve over long time periods, but will not suddenly alter. — Janus

It occurred to me when I wrote the above that I am addressing only our ideas (beliefs). I could have written 'invariances' instead of "laws of nature". Do you think it is reasonable to say that if the past constrains the future it follows that nature's invariances do not suddenly or randomly alter?

I'm not familiar with Gillian Russell's work...will check it out.

It's ironic that an OP seemingly written by AI questions the intelligence of AIs. Intelligence is not the same as consciousness—to qualify as conscious an entity must be able to feel, to care. I don't think there is any question that these LLMs are intelligent, but not conscious.

Anyway, it doesn't seem to be a question of great importance, whereas what I wrote in another thread, which I will quote here, points to an issue I think is of much greater significance:

"Harari outlines a different set of problem here. We probably shouldn't be using AI. If we do, we may well become unwitting co-perpetrators of what may be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. I never have and never will use them for research or for polishing what I write. Don't feed the Beast!"

Edit: On second reading I find that the OP is not questioning the intelligence of LLMs, but whether or not they can reason. Are they capable of being rational? Intelligence is not equivalent to rationality, just as it is not equivalent to consciousness, since great intelligence can obviously be applied to irrational projects. Since LLMs are able to synthesize information and produce original, well-reasoned texts, I think it is fair to say they are capable of rationality.

I agree with what you say, and for me the idea that the past constrains the future relies on the idea that the '"laws of nature" may evolve over long time periods, but will not suddenly alter.

Harari outlines a different set of problem here. We probably shouldn't be using AI. If we do, we may well become unwitting perpetrators of what may be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. I never have and never will use them for research or for polishing what I write. Don't feed the Beast!

It's not true by definition that the future will, or even likely will, resemble the past because it always has. It's just an expectation based on habit. The only reason I say it is a rational expectation is because past experience is literally all we have to go on —which I think means it would be irrational to ignore it. For examples, it would be irrational to believe that you could jump off a tall building and fail to fall to the ground, but instead be able to fly, or to ignore the science that indicates that humans have contributed to global warming.

I'd still change that to "The future will most likely resemble the past because as far as we can tell, the future has always resembled the past". It's not a tautology.

Note: By "resemble the past" of course I mean broadly speaking. We don't have any reliable records that indicate that there have been periods where such things as gravity failing to obtain, time running backwards, the Sun failing to rise and set, fire freezing things instead of heating and burning them, rivers running backwards, people being suddenly able to breathe underwater, animals changing their forms, people and animals rising from the dead, etc., etc.

I still do not understand this. "We can by inductive reasoning" just is "the future will resemble the past". It's re-stating, not explaining. — Banno

I don't take it as being "the future will resemble the past", but "the future will most likely resemble the past". This is practical, not "pure" or deductive, reasoning based on what has been experienced in the past— as far as we know the future has always resembled the past. We don't know of any exceptions— "exceptions" denoting 'breaches of the common set of regularities and invariances'

To put it another way, it is rational in a practical sense to assume that the future will resemble the past, because to our knowledge it always has.
— Janus
That says that the future resembles the past, because the future resembles the past...?

Valid, I suppose, but I find it unsatisfactory. — Banno

To repeat, I wouldn't put it that way but instead "the future will most likely resemble the past, because the future has, as far as we know, always resembled the past".

.

We cannot rationally justify the belief that the future will resemble the past.

We cannot justify it by deductive reasoning, but we can by inductive reasoning—so the conclusion that the future will resemble the past is not certain, but is the IBE. To put it another way, it is rational in a practical sense to assume that the future will resemble the past, because to our knowledge it always has.

The "U" is a given—without understanding nothing gets off the ground in the first place, so I don't see how it adds anything when it is always already implicit in the JTB.

All that is perceived must exist, but it does not follow that only the perceived exists. Because it is absurd to claim only the perceived exists, insofar as subsequent discoveries become impossible, we are entitled to ask….for that thing eventually perceived, in what state was that thing before it was perceived? — Mww

Yes, we know, or can discover, what manner of existence things have for us. We can also ask what manner of existence they could have for other percipients or absent any percipients at all—but about that question we can only assess what seems most plausible given our understanding of our own experience.

At issue is finding a solution to Hume's scepticism. That is, how we can move from a finite set of observations to the "objectively best" general conclusion. We know that this is not something that can be done by a valid deduction. — Banno

All we have as guide is past experience, and what seems to work. Apart from instinct, it's all any animal has. Science (and not just science) is a vast mostly coherent web of belief and understanding that has evolved out of such practices. The "objectively best" general conclusion is merely the one most consistent and coherent with that general web of established beliefs and understandings. Of course we cannot have deductive certainty—that is what Hume's skepticism is about. That seems obvious today, but needed to be pointed out in the age of rationalism.

It could be "done by valid deduction" if there were such things as certain premises. Seems like "much ado about nothing" today.

His focus is on the advance of science through creative processes that are at odds with abduction. For example, scientific breakthroughs often depend on thinking outside the box and dropping theory-laden assumptions. — Relativist

We may have different notions of abduction. My conception of abduction certainly doesn't preclude novel thinking or "thinking outside the box".

I often hear it said that science doesn't progress through cumulative knowledge and understanding, but through paradigm shifts. I don't think it's entirely one or the other and I don't think the 'paradigm shift' paradigm is an accurate picture except at the broadest scales. How many historical scientific paradigm shifts can you think of ?

I meant to respond to your question about whether abduction resolves Hume's problem of induction. I don't see how it has any bearing on it.

As I understand it Hume's point was that inductive conclusions are not logically necessary, that is that induction is not deduction.

As you say "don't conclude that such an explanation is true". I agree with that...scientific theories in general and the abductive hypotheses that may lead to them cannot be demonstrated to be true. They are held as perennially provisional.

So where you say
There are not innumerable possible plausible explanations.
— Janus
"plausible" adds the unjustified normative element that lets confirmation bias in. You can now reject all the implausible explanations.

But further, in the context of this thread, do you take abduction as helping answer Hume's scepticism? — Banno

Well, why not aim for the best explanation one can think of? Do you deny there are better and worse explanations?

Abduction, at least in the context of science, relies on current accepted understanding, and the degree of consistency with that as a measure of plausibility.

Think about plate tectonics, for example. Someone could have come up with a rival hypothesis that it was the gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon causing the formation of mountains and the creation of separate continents. Or they could have speculated that it was the will of God. Would there be any plausibility in those ideas? Don't you think abductive conjectures need to be testable, falsifiable or at least supported by mathematics?

Ok, so what is it? — Banno

Abduction? Nothing more nor less than creating explanatory hypotheses. I'm not seeing the difficulty you are apparently having with the idea.