NateEag

Thank you, much appreciated!

This is a very interesting datum.

Can you point me to a source?

> but this seems a long way from saying that logical fallacies are to rationalists as heresies are to (say) Christians.

Logical fallacies do nothing to show an argument is wrong.

All they do is demonstrate that a chain of reasoning cannot be a logical proof that the conclusion must be true, given its premises.

Dismissing arguments because "they're fallacious" is actually not so far removed from dismissing ideas because they're heretical.

In each case, what matters is whether the ideas are true, not whether your interlocutor proved rigorously it is true.

As one who has lurked in Rationalist corners of the web and learned useful things there without ever really buying in, I can confirm it really is treated rather like a holy text.

I've seen Rationalists defend it against very fair and accurate criticisms (see this whole thread for some of those), completely failing to recognize the complaints and objections are often legitimate.

I believe I've seen people cite it as the thing that brought them into the Rationalist community.

It's not uncommon to see people quote it in varying capacities - as a reminder of what "good rationality" looks like, as a cultural shibboleth, as a criticism of an idea they disagree with, and more. As an ex-evangelical who's read the Protestant Bible well over five times, this behavioral pattern looks very, very familiar.

I'm not going to spend the hours digging to find actual evidence I'm correct, and it's possible I'm being unfair and misremembering. I'm just a guy on the Internet - don't take this as anything other than "Here's my recollection. Take it for what it's worth."

The label of "Torah" did not strike me as wrong, though.

To be fair, the Rationalists _do_ accept the two-word rebuttal "Chesterton's Fence," in principle.

...though yes, in practice if your invoke or, they're fairly likely to explain in elaborate length why it doesn't apply here.

> `claude` can be considered a version of `rm` that can do what `rm` does (and other things - including things you don't want).

It can't, though.

Only when connected to a harness can Claude remove files from disk.

And, at that point, it's using existing libraries or tools to do it - `rm` if it uses bash, the `remove` stdio function if it uses C or a C-implemented programming language to write a custom tool for the job, or one of many other options.

It remains true, though, that Claude cannot itself remove files - just be your proxy to guess what files it's probable you were referring to, that you likely wanted to remove them, and then use another tool to actually do so.

As you note, it will be wrong about that sometimes, and it will likely be unpleasant if you haven't prepared for the eventuality.

> When people say "AI is just a tool", I think they mostly know what they mean and we all do, too.

When I hear that phrase, I think the speaker is either too naive to live, or is intentionally trying to sidestep anyone bringing up the manifold disaster-level issues with genAI systems.

> Notice your Webster’s doesn’t include the insult usage.

What exactly do you think

> a word of reproach

means?

I am a professional programmer whose employers have compelled me to use genAI.

I have no qualms about saying I hate it, every workday is utterly miserable, I can see my skills eroding, and I see almost nothing but downside to it.

FWIW, a past manager once dubbed me "the Luddite programmer," a badge I wore with pride.

Make no mistake, I do love computers, and writing software. Steve Jobs' metaphor of a "bicycle for the mind" captures well the role they played for me in my teens and twenties.

Alas, LLMs are like a freight train for shipping all minds to one destination, instead of freeing them to all find their individual ways to unique places.

...and also, the freight train's destination is hell.

My apologies - I did not read the thread carefully enough.

Maybe, if you don't like how the company treats its customers and craps all over the commons, you could not use their products.

And, given the insanity that's been happening like the HuggingFace hack, maybe slower development would be a VERY GOOD THING.

No object, labor, or knowledge has inherent economic value.

Its value is subjective, determined by what the market (i.e., a bunch of humans) will pay for it.

Given the gigantic pile of money that's spent on music, film, and books every year, it's quite clear that there can be large amounts of economic value in a piece of art.

That modern technology makes it easier to take an artist's with with absolutely no recompense, and that many choose to do so regardless of the maker's wishes, does not change that.

It just underlined what's been obvious since the dawn of civilization, that many humans are happy to ignore what other humans want and to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

...which brings us back full circle to the actual article, which is a clear illustration of the OpenAI executive team's conscious choice to do exactly that.