coffeecat

While I do reject realism, I disagree with all three claims.

> “the Universe sprang into existence last Thursday”

I have memories from before last Thursday; therefore, this claim would contradict what currently seems to be true. That's the best I can do. If you're a physicalist, you cannot deny this claim with certainty either: if electrical activity in the brain is truly the substrate of consciousness, then you have to admit to the possibility that you could be a brain in a vat, hooked up to some kind of world simulator.

> “I am the only entity that exists”

That would imply that I'm God. And I'm pretty sure I'm not God. Therefore, other conscious entities must exist.

> “Jupiter doesn’t actually exists, it merely appears to exist.”

To be is to be perceived, in my view. I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between the two.

> Could it be that later generations of archeologists took the opposite view because the preponderance of evidence uncovered in that time pointed in that direction (and because the cultural and political stigma against contradicting the Bible diminished over time,)

My understanding is that the shift can mostly be attributed to the rise of biblical minimalism as the dominant interpretive framework. Radiocarbon dating of the Jericho ruins did rule out Albright's preferred late Exodus date. But the radiocarbon date is consistent with an (in my opinion, far more interesting) earlier Exodus date, which would line up with the hypothesis that the Israeli people were the Hyksos, and which would also line up with a sequential interpretation of the timeline presented in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.

> or are you implying that the interpretation of archaeological evidence either way is simply a matter of arbitrary personal preference?

Archaeological evidence constrains the set of defensible explanations. But the available evidence from this time period (Exodus, conquest of Canaan) is so scarce that it mostly comes down to personal preference.

> And notwithstanding that, there is absolutely no credible evidence of the supernatural at all.

How could it be otherwise? If there were reproducible evidence, then the phenomenon in question would be classified as natural.

> On what basis do you believe the Bible and its supernatural claims could have happened?

I'm quite certain that mind is more fundamental than matter, and I'm not very sure about a whole lot else.

During Albright's time, the archaeological evidence was generally interpreted as being in support of Old Testament narratives. Later generations of archaeologists mostly took the opposite view. The bottom line is, there's very little to go by, and the little archaeological evidence that exists can be interpreted either way, depending on one's preferred conclusion.

> We know the Exodus didn't happen because the supernatural elements described cannot have happened, ...

Of course the supernatural events could have happened! Unless you're certain that:

- matter exists (i.e., physicalism or dualism is the correct metaphysical worldview)

- the universe is strictly a physics simulation

- there's no God who's capable of fiddling with human affairs (or interested in doing so)

> Claude has been quite helpful in reviewing my investments, and I have made a fair amount of money on his advice. His availability is unparalleled compared to any sort of financial planner.

Just out of curiosity, what are some investment moves that you made as a result of Claude's advice?

"In a bull market, everyone's a genius."

It's important not to assume that LLMs are giving you an impartial perspective on any given topic. The perspective you're most likely getting is that of whoever created the most training data related to that topic.

I'm sure there are people who spend their time doing this, but I don't understand the motive. Doesn't one post in comment threads because one wishes to share their thoughts with other humans?

It has no owner. It's controlled by a self-replicating (or at least self-propagating) AI-based system.

Ehh, you really can't imagine any way that an AI system might escape human control and act autonomously?

    while crypto_balance > 0:
        generate_scam()
        send_out_emails()
        deposit_proceeds_into_crypto_wallet()
        pay_cloud_bill()
        spawn_new_instance()

Take my baseless speculation for what it's worth, but could it be that you were depressed because your life was too easy? We humans are meant to struggle through adversity. Can you really appreciate your financial security if you've never faced financial insecurity, or appreciate companionship if you've never experienced loneliness?

> The top 10% income bracket of the US is broad enough to include basically all US software developers, isn't it?

I wish! My salary is a bit below the median US household income.

"80% as good as the real thing, at 20% of the cost" has always been a defining characteristic of progress.

I think the key insight is that only a small fraction of people who read recipes online actually care which particular version of the recipe they're getting. Most people just want to see a working recipe as quickly as possible. What they want is a meal - the recipe is just an intermediate step toward what they really care about.

There are still people who make fine wood furniture by hand. But most people just want a table or a chair - they couldn't care less about the species of wood or the type of joint used - and particle board is 80% as good as wood at a fraction of the cost! most people couldn't even tell the difference. Generative AI is to real writing as particle board is to wood.

After spending some time prompting LLMs and then talking to actual people, I've once or twice been tempted to phrase questions along the lines of "Comment on x, with an emphasis on y; do not mention z."

Surely, someone must have already thought of this. Perhaps what we really need is a curated index of curated indices.

"Risk of internalizing spurious explanations" is an excellent way of putting it. LLM output is, essentially, a polished-looking, authoritative-sounding summary of what the top few Google results probably say about a topic. Nine times out of ten, the explanation may be spot on. But "the first few google results" are not, in general, a reliable source. And after getting nine correct answers in a row from the LLM, it's unfortunately very tempting to accept the tenth at face value without consulting any primary sources.

I've been finding that ChatGPT is helpful when taking a "first dive" into an unfamiliar topic. But, after studying the topic at greater depth through primary sources, I'll start to see many subtle errors, or over-simplifications, or claims stated as facts which are actually controversial among experts, in the ChatGPT answers. Overall, I'd say ChatGPT can provide a good approximation of truth, which can speed up research by providing instant context. But it should not by any means be the final destination when researching a topic.