10 ms·

bias infests research as well as seen by the replication crisis. So you being a researcher doesn't give more credence to your words especially given that the st

bias infests research as well as seen by the replication crisis. So you being a researcher doesn't give more credence to your words especially given that the state of current research cannot fully comprehend what these ML models are doing internally. I do agree that we can't ascribe cognition to machine learning. But I also believe that we can't ascribe that it's NOT cognition. Why? Because we don't even truly understand what "Knowing" or cognition is. We can't even ascribe a quantitative similarity metric. What we are seeing is that those inputs and outputs look remarkably similar to the real thing. How similar it is internally is not a known thing. That's why even though you're an NLP researcher, I still say your argument here is just as niave as the person who claims these things are sentient. You simply don't know. No one does.

gillesjacobs 4y ago
In science, if you don't know, you don't make the claim, that is basic positivism and the scientific method. So basic in fact, I was thought this in elementary school. So far ad-hominem attributions of naivety. Anyone that humanises computation is not only committing an A.I. faux-pas but are going against the basic scientific method.
- oneoneonetwo 4y ago
  > In science, if you don't know, you don't make the claim, that is basic positivism and the scientific method. Yes you're correct. So you can't make the claim that it's NOT cognition. That is my point. You also can't make the claim that it is cognition which was the OTHER point. Completely agree with your statement here. But it goes further then this, and your statement shows YOU don't understand science. >So basic in fact, I was thought this in elementary school. So far ad-hominem attributions of naivety. No science is complex and basically most people don't understand the scientific method and it's limitations. It's not basic at all, not even people who graduate from four year colleges in STEM fully understand the true nature of science. Or even many scientists! In science and therefore reality as we know it; nothing can be proven. This is because every subsequent observation can completely contradict an initial claim. Proof is the domain of logic and math, it doesn't exist in reality. Things can be disproven but nothing can actually be proven. That is science. This is subtle stuff, but it's legit. I'll quote Einstein if you don't believe me: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Einstein And a link for further investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Anyway all of this says that NO claim can be made about anything unless it's disproof. Which is exactly inline with what I'm saying. Still claims are made all the time anyway in academia and the majority of these claims aren't technically scientific. This occurs because we can't practically operate on anything in reality if we can't in actuality claim things are true. So we do it anyway despite lack of any form of actual proof. >Anyone that humanises computation is not only committing an A.I. faux-pas but are going against the basic scientific method. But so is dismissing any similarity to humans. You can't technically say it's wrong or right. Especially when the outputs and inputs to these models are very similar to what humans would say. This is basic preschool stuff I knew this when I was a baby! I thought everybody knew this! <Joking>.
  - gillesjacobs 4y ago
    - oneoneonetwo 4y ago
      - antonvs 4y ago
        You’re looking for someone to argue with, but your arguments are trivial and meritless. You’re not a scientist and never have been. The fact that you’re posting with a throwaway account created an hour ago says it all. HN should not allow people like you to post.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Everyone should be welcome to post, this discussion was largely constructive, and though GP should have refrained from certain bad faith rhetoric, their line of questioning resulted in interesting discussion which is itself a contribution. Your criticism should be calling on them to post more respectfully and humbly, rather than shunning them. We don't know if they're a scientist (let alone that they never will be) and shouldn't assert they aren't, and everyone is entitled to post from throwaway accounts. Everyone should be welcome to question assertions, even nonexperts (though nonexperts should acknowledge their limitations & refrain from disrespectful language).
        oneoneonetwo 4y ago
        hnnotreddit 4y ago
        You fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method which includes falsifiability but is not limited to it, moved the goalpost away from peer review for journals into general bar stool philosophy all while continuously insulting the GP. What is ironic is you hiding behind throwaway accounts and asserting superior knowledge while fundamentally misunderstanding the issue of positive claims in science.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

gillesjacobs 4y ago

In science, if you don't know, you don't make the claim, that is basic positivism and the scientific method. So basic in fact, I was thought this in elementary school. So far ad-hominem attributions of naivety. Anyone that humanises computation is not only committing an A.I. faux-pas but are going against the basic scientific method.

oneoneonetwo 4y ago
> In science, if you don't know, you don't make the claim, that is basic positivism and the scientific method. Yes you're correct. So you can't make the claim that it's NOT cognition. That is my point. You also can't make the claim that it is cognition which was the OTHER point. Completely agree with your statement here. But it goes further then this, and your statement shows YOU don't understand science. >So basic in fact, I was thought this in elementary school. So far ad-hominem attributions of naivety. No science is complex and basically most people don't understand the scientific method and it's limitations. It's not basic at all, not even people who graduate from four year colleges in STEM fully understand the true nature of science. Or even many scientists! In science and therefore reality as we know it; nothing can be proven. This is because every subsequent observation can completely contradict an initial claim. Proof is the domain of logic and math, it doesn't exist in reality. Things can be disproven but nothing can actually be proven. That is science. This is subtle stuff, but it's legit. I'll quote Einstein if you don't believe me: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Einstein And a link for further investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Anyway all of this says that NO claim can be made about anything unless it's disproof. Which is exactly inline with what I'm saying. Still claims are made all the time anyway in academia and the majority of these claims aren't technically scientific. This occurs because we can't practically operate on anything in reality if we can't in actuality claim things are true. So we do it anyway despite lack of any form of actual proof. >Anyone that humanises computation is not only committing an A.I. faux-pas but are going against the basic scientific method. But so is dismissing any similarity to humans. You can't technically say it's wrong or right. Especially when the outputs and inputs to these models are very similar to what humans would say. This is basic preschool stuff I knew this when I was a baby! I thought everybody knew this! <Joking>.
- gillesjacobs 4y ago
  - oneoneonetwo 4y ago
    - antonvs 4y ago
      You’re looking for someone to argue with, but your arguments are trivial and meritless. You’re not a scientist and never have been. The fact that you’re posting with a throwaway account created an hour ago says it all. HN should not allow people like you to post.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        Everyone should be welcome to post, this discussion was largely constructive, and though GP should have refrained from certain bad faith rhetoric, their line of questioning resulted in interesting discussion which is itself a contribution. Your criticism should be calling on them to post more respectfully and humbly, rather than shunning them. We don't know if they're a scientist (let alone that they never will be) and shouldn't assert they aren't, and everyone is entitled to post from throwaway accounts. Everyone should be welcome to question assertions, even nonexperts (though nonexperts should acknowledge their limitations & refrain from disrespectful language).
      - oneoneonetwo 4y ago
        hnnotreddit 4y ago
        You fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method which includes falsifiability but is not limited to it, moved the goalpost away from peer review for journals into general bar stool philosophy all while continuously insulting the GP. What is ironic is you hiding behind throwaway accounts and asserting superior knowledge while fundamentally misunderstanding the issue of positive claims in science.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]