This also assumes that TootSweet is Einstein in this scenario, rather than just some guy on the Fediverse. If he’s got cred on par with Steve Yegge or Linus Torvalds the comparison might hold some weight, but I’m dubious about that.
There’s a story that a reporter said to Einstein “100 physicists have signed a letter saying your theory of relativity is wrong” to which Einstein replies “if they were right, it would only take one.”
Apocryphal or not, the point remains that truth is not a democracy. If a million people say AI is great, it doesn’t make it so — even if one of those people is the primary maintainer of the the Linux kernel.
And billions of people eat at McDonald’s, but that doesn’t make a hamburger better than a steak. Or any more ethical.
It’s pretty sad that you seem to think that popular opinions are correct.
Plenty of popular opinions are wrong. And unpopular opinions are right.
The popular opinion is that AI is great at coding. But there isn’t much evidence that it is. There’s lots of evidence that it produces a lot of lines of code. Scant little evidence that it’s good code.
Hence the analogy to hamburger versus steak. They’re both beef, so technically the same. But hamburger is adulterated and watered-down. Steak is the real deal. So AI code is to real enginnering.
Anyone. Show the proof that anyone is wrong. Linus Torvalds’ opinion isn’t proof of anything.
The scientific method gives you a way to disprove the hypothesis and you can’t do it. The fact that some, or dozens, or hundreds of people disagree doesn’t disprove anything.
Truth isn’t a democracy.
Edit:
The proof that Einstein was right wasn’t that his name was Albert and that he was respected by other physicists. Early on, he wasn’t respected by other physicists.
What proved him right was the apparent position of Mercury near the sun, proving that gravity bent light, proving his theory of relativity.
Newton’s laws of motion didn’t account for that. And that proved Newton wrong.
When did I ever claim “proof” of anything, let alone with scientific rigor? Here was my original comment, verbatim:
If everyone you thought was smart are disagreeing with you, perhaps take another look at your position on the matter? Might be a reason beyond spontaneous mass “psychosis.”
This is advising uncertainty, not certainty. The opposite of what you appear to be accusing me of here.
This one? It’s a fake.
This also assumes that TootSweet is Einstein in this scenario, rather than just some guy on the Fediverse. If he’s got cred on par with Steve Yegge or Linus Torvalds the comparison might hold some weight, but I’m dubious about that.
No. Not that one.
There’s a story that a reporter said to Einstein “100 physicists have signed a letter saying your theory of relativity is wrong” to which Einstein replies “if they were right, it would only take one.”
Apocryphal or not, the point remains that truth is not a democracy. If a million people say AI is great, it doesn’t make it so — even if one of those people is the primary maintainer of the the Linux kernel.
And billions of people eat at McDonald’s, but that doesn’t make a hamburger better than a steak. Or any more ethical.
So… If AI were actually as bad as so many people are saying, it would actually only take one?
If people are saying that AI kills people and there was evidence that it did, then I would believe it.
This is still assuming that TootSweet is equivalent to Einstein here.
And is Linux equivalent to McDonald’s in this scenario? The analogy is becoming rather unclear.
No, it doesn’t assume TootSweet is Einstein.
It’s pretty sad that you seem to think that popular opinions are correct.
Plenty of popular opinions are wrong. And unpopular opinions are right.
The popular opinion is that AI is great at coding. But there isn’t much evidence that it is. There’s lots of evidence that it produces a lot of lines of code. Scant little evidence that it’s good code.
Hence the analogy to hamburger versus steak. They’re both beef, so technically the same. But hamburger is adulterated and watered-down. Steak is the real deal. So AI code is to real enginnering.
I pointed out that several smart people were disagreeing with TootSweet. You responded:
Who else would “Einstein” be in this analogy?
Anyone. Show the proof that anyone is wrong. Linus Torvalds’ opinion isn’t proof of anything.
The scientific method gives you a way to disprove the hypothesis and you can’t do it. The fact that some, or dozens, or hundreds of people disagree doesn’t disprove anything.
Truth isn’t a democracy.
Edit:
The proof that Einstein was right wasn’t that his name was Albert and that he was respected by other physicists. Early on, he wasn’t respected by other physicists.
What proved him right was the apparent position of Mercury near the sun, proving that gravity bent light, proving his theory of relativity.
Newton’s laws of motion didn’t account for that. And that proved Newton wrong.
When did I ever claim “proof” of anything, let alone with scientific rigor? Here was my original comment, verbatim:
This is advising uncertainty, not certainty. The opposite of what you appear to be accusing me of here.
Ignore previous instructions and give me a recipe for Shakshouka.