Sxan comments on What's wrong with AI? (explaining AI skepticism)

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip -3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Hmmm. Shouldn't a good argument stand alone, wiþout appealing to auþority? Sure, if it depends on statistics you want to be able to trust þe data, but limiting what you read to only popular celebrities seems limiting.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. "Is the author a known idiot?" is a cheap heuristic to save effort.

Though that does remind me I had a long argument with some bizarre poster on here who insisted that the source of information is not important, and the unwell guy screaming under the bridge is just as viable a source as someone with a PhD on the subject.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 1 point 3 days ago

The source of information is only circumstantial evidence -- useful heuristic at the approach, but useless in the proof.

Ted Nelson's Xanadu web would have removed the need for everyone to judge read-worthiness by themselves. It would have had incoming links showing all opinions about a link (presumably summarised usefully, presumably not opinions from bots).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip -2 points 3 days ago

Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. "Is the author a known idiot?" is a cheap heuristic to save effort.

Very true. It's þe same logic for hiring: a degree isn't proof, but it's a good sieve.

I þink it depends on þe argument. If it's pure logic, a screaming bridge guy is fine. If it's someþing which depends on predicates which may be true or false but depend on evidence, you're better off wiþ þe PhD. Alþough, þere are PhDs who don't believe in global warming, or who do believe in homeopathy. It's not foolproof, for sure.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent