oneoneonetwo

the horizontal aspect of software has samey caricatures that get boring as well. Most of it is web development. If you switch verticals but stay in the same horizontal zone of back end web development you're mostly doing the same stuff if it's web dev.

Need to switch lanes both vertically and horizontally.

Wow. Read the article guys.

He says eye strain is caused by blue light. That's why he uses light mode.

That makes no sense. Blue light is ORTHOGONAL to the question of whether Dark Mode or Light Mode is better for your eyes.

Does light mode cause eye strain does dark mode cause eye strain? Which is better for your eyes? He doesn't find any research studies comparing the two and he grabs an unrelated study and claims that blue light is the only source of eye strain. I can assure blue light is NOT the only source of eye strain.

This article is biased. He's picking and choosing studies to support a biased agenda.

In science nothing is provable. Things can be falsified but if a hypothesis is true it can actually never be proven. This is because at any point in time and additional observation can be added to your sample that definitively disproves your hypothesis.

All zebras have stripes. is my hypothesis. I observe 100 zebras and I see they have stripes. I see 10 million zebras and I see they have stripes. There is no amount of observations I can make to prove my hypothesis. However if at any point in time I see a zebra with no stripes, I have disproven my hypothesis.

So anything that is in actuality true, is not falsifiable and also un-provable. In short, some statement about our universe can be true, but we can never absolutely know for sure whether that statement is actually true.

Basically your comment isn't logical because you're saying we shouldn't study anything that is true because it's unfalsifiable by definition.

In addition to falsification, Science can make statements that are vague and UN-definitive. Un-definitive claims include causal claims and correlative claims.

Correlation is A and B are casually linked directly or through some other source. A maybe causes B or B maybe causes A or maybe a C is causing A and B. Causation is A and B are directly linked causally. A causes B.

Science can make the two claims above but such claims are made based off of a sample. If the sample is bad or biased the claim is also bad and biased. Given that we live in an unknown universe of which any sample we extract can only be of finite size out of a potentially infinite size it makes both correlative and causative claims un-definitive. The sample can never fully encompass everything. This is the reason why in science, nothing can be proven.

So in short science can definitively falsify things, and in a vague sense it can make statements about correlations and causation. The later two, though undefinitive can be used to say something about some topic of the universe that is true. But it can't say anything definitive and we can never know for sure.

Because Falsification is limited to things that are false, so much of science doesn't actually use it even though it is a definitive metric.

As I mentioned however, I am seeking opinions here to the contrary of my gut reaction as my gut is often dumb and reactionary.

The GP is kind of the one that's not too bright. You're definitely a layman but you ask the right questions. GP is not a layman and he's suppose to know certain things and not say what he said. He's very opinionated and makes broad statements without addressing nuance. So don't worry about it! You're not dumb!

GP is utterly wrong. Falsification is still used on the frontiers of modern physics, though much of it nowadays is just correlative results, but if one such correlation is shown not to hold at all, it becomes a falsification. In fact, EVERY single experiment in modern physics is an attempt at falsification. And when the falsification fails... a correlative result is presented as the final answer.

But note, even a falsification is not clear in certain cases. This is because our scientific observation tools have limited accuracy. Most of the time we just assume the observation tools are 100% accurate. But at the frontiers of modern physics the observation tools are so bad that the tools themselves yield probabilistic answers. So while in science falsification is still very much used to clearly discard theories, in modern physics, a negative result is not indicative of a clear cut falsification.

which admittedly, many people still seem to want to do.

This occurs because most science is not the "the frontiers of modern physics". But even then, falsification in the frontiers of modern physics is still a useful tool.

I also want to mention that, you directly stated in your first sentence in your first post that humanizing was wrong.

This in itself is a claim made without evidence. Which is my point. The claim as it stands cannot be made either way. We simply don't know.

while continuously insulting the GP.

Read the conversation. You are accusing me of something vile which the GP started. GP Literally said that science was something elementary school level shit implying that I was so damn stupid I was uneducated. You're only taking his side because You agree with him, you are not seeing who drew first blood and you are burning the witch because it serves your own agenda. He insulted me DELIBERATELY. I'm also not technically insulting him. I don't think he knew what I told him.

You fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method which includes falsifiability but is not limited to it

This is fundamentally incorrect. You are just like the GP. You lack of knowledge. Did you not see the quote from Einstein? My statements are legitimate.

The highest most definitive statement one can make in science is falsification. The next highest form of statement is causality and the next is correlative and everything after that is just informal qualitative stuff. That's it. After falsification everything becomes dependent on the sample and all statements are open to being proved completely wrong at any point in time. Causative and correlative statements are never definitive. But falsification is definitive.

Let me repeat. The only definitive claims science can make about reality is falsification. That's it.

There is no form of provable claims in science. None. If a scientist makes such a claim in a scientific paper, it is not technically science. It is simply a speculative claim on an academic paper. This is not philosophy this is science in it's most fundamental form.

What is ironic is you hiding behind throwaway accounts

Hiding behind throw away accounts? Are you joking? What is there to hide that everyone else is hiding here? Are you implying you're not hiding, why don't you tell me your real full name if your not hiding as well? The only reason why I made a new account is because I wanted to comment here. That's it. Are you demanding I put my name here?

moved the goalpost away from peer review for journals

Let me quote what was said in GP's FIRST sentence and FIRST post.

"I am NLP researcher who volunteers for peer review often and the anthropomorphisms in papers are indeed very common and very wrong. "

There are TWO GOAL POSTS listed here. anthropomorphisms LISTED in papers and anthropomorphisms being "VERY WRONG." I did not move a goal post. I am simply refuting a goal post that the GP listed himself and that YOU missed.

while fundamentally misunderstanding the issue of positive claims in science.

Positivism in science is largely a philosophy. It's abstract enough such that it's not worth talking about. This is actual philosophy. Falsification is fundamental enough that it is intrinsic to understanding the scientific method. It's not "just" a philosophy any more then logic or math is a "philosophy". Literally. If you don't get that the entire scientific method and reality in itself is ONLY subject to falsification, you then you don't understand science.

I'll repeat Einsteins quote:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Literally the man is saying that there is no science in the universe that can prove any of his theories right. If you don't understand the meaning behind why he said this, again, you don't understand science. This is fundamental it is basic. Not fundamental in the sense that everyone should understand it, but fundamental in terms of foundational to reality, to science itself.

It's an invalid falsification.

The input to chatGPT is a textual interface, the output is letters on a screen. That is the exact same interface as if I were chatting with a human over a chat app.

Your getting into the technicalities of intermediary inputs and outputs. Well sure... analog data seen by the nueral wetware of human brains IS obviously different from the textual digital data inputted into the ML model. There are very different filters and mechanisms at work here. For sure.

HOWEVER, we are looking for an isomorphism here. Similar to how a emulated playstation on a computer is very different then a physical playstation... an internal isomorphism STILL exists between hardware and the software emulating the hardware.

We do not know if such an isomorphism exists between chatGPT and the human brain. This isomorphism is basically the crystallized essence of what cognition is if we could define it. If one does exists it's not perfect... there are missing things. But it is niave to say that some form isomorphism isn't there AT ALL. It also niave to say that there is FOR SURE an isomorphism.

The most rational and scientific thing at this point is to speculate. Maybe what chatGPT is, is something vaguely isomorphic to cognition. Keyword: maybe.

It is NOT an unreasonable speculation GIVEN what we KNOW and DON'T KNOW.

I don't know if you played with chatGPT but it's much more than a just right sequence of inputs and outputs.

I have already incorporated into my daily use (as a programmer). It has huge flaws but the output is anecdotally amazing enough that the claim of "cognition" is not as extraordinary as you think it is.

Especially given the fact that we don't even fully understand what cognition is, the claim that it is NOT cognition is equally just as crazy.

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

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>.