This also applies to many comments written by people? In general, whenever something is shared, one could invest more time to make it more accurate. However, to me it seems hard to come up with general rules about how much time to invest vetting claims.
If someone had a pattern of fabrication and very poor understanding (and apparent confidence) like LLMs often do if used uncritically, I would be annoyed with them and possibly do any of the following:
Tell them to read and review more carefully, look for opposing arguments, etc..
Downvote such comments (and I very very rarely downvote).
Stop engaging with this person, because it wastes my time and may encourage them to waste othersâ time.
I think sharing long texts produced by LLMs is often fine even if they were not fully read by the person prompting, basically for the same reasons that it is fine to share long text produced by people even if the person sharing them did not fully read them.
I would request you check it yourself or at least run LLM critique passes, because of high rates of hallucination and other errors by LLMs.
Similarly, if there was an author who was just as consistently bad as LLMs are, and you shared their work uncritically like this, Iâd recommend the same.
I have the impression many people, including academics, use âconsciousnessâ and âphenomenal consciousnessâ interchangeably, and without wanting to take a stance on illusionism or realism.
My impression is that many people, including academics, use âconsciousnessâ and âphenomenal consciousnessâ interchangeably, but they do so implicitly rejecting strong illusionism, would reject strong illusionism if asked directly, and typically donât understand strong illusionism. Maybe many are open, though, Iâm not sure.
If someone had a pattern of fabrication and very poor understanding (and apparent confidence) like LLMs often do if used uncritically, I would be annoyed with them and possibly do any of the following:
Tell them to read and review more carefully, look for opposing arguments, etc..
Downvote such comments (and I very very rarely downvote).
Stop engaging with this person, because it wastes my time and may encourage them to waste othersâ time.
Makes sense. I just think what is âpoor understandingâ is often sufficiently contentious for one to have a high bar for preferring not sharing over sharing with little verification. I also tend to default to let people decide the extent to which they want to engage with something.
My impression is that many people, including academics, use âconsciousnessâ and âphenomenal consciousnessâ interchangeably, but they do so implicitly rejecting strong illusionism, would reject strong illusionism if asked directly, and typically donât understand strong illusionism. Maybe many are open, though, Iâm not sure.
Makes sense. I was not clear. However, by âwithout wanting to take a stance on illusionism or realismâ, I meant many do not have a good picture of what strong illusionism means (and may be conflating it with eliminativism), and therefore are not taking a stance of the correct version of illusionism. I was doing this to some extent.
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
Other than argue about it, probably not much, assuming functionalism and materialism/âphysicalism of some kind thatâs compatible with artificial sentience.
Illusionism states that phenomenal consciousness does not exist, even though it seems to exist. While illusionism is controversial, it is a serious contender among theories of consciousness. We argue that it has substantial and non-trivial implications for non-human consciousness research (NHCR), particularly for the study of the distribution of phenomenal consciousness across beings. If illusionism is true, NHCR can be pursued if conceptualized as investigating the distribution of quasi-phenomenal consciousness, i.e. the states which are misrepresented as phenomenally conscious in humans. However, we argue that knowing the distribution of quasi-phenomenal consciousness is not highly informative. For this reason, illusionism suggests that some approaches to NHCR should be preferred over others. Approaches which focus on features that provide valuable information about non-human cognition independently of their supposed relation to consciousness retain much of their value if illusionism is true. We propose a âzombie testâ and five specific heuristics to help identifying such features. Consequently, empirical researchers who take illusionism seriously gain a reason to prioritize some methodological approaches over others.
If someone had a pattern of fabrication and very poor understanding (and apparent confidence) like LLMs often do if used uncritically, I would be annoyed with them and possibly do any of the following:
Tell them to read and review more carefully, look for opposing arguments, etc..
Downvote such comments (and I very very rarely downvote).
Stop engaging with this person, because it wastes my time and may encourage them to waste othersâ time.
I would request you check it yourself or at least run LLM critique passes, because of high rates of hallucination and other errors by LLMs.
Similarly, if there was an author who was just as consistently bad as LLMs are, and you shared their work uncritically like this, Iâd recommend the same.
My impression is that many people, including academics, use âconsciousnessâ and âphenomenal consciousnessâ interchangeably, but they do so implicitly rejecting strong illusionism, would reject strong illusionism if asked directly, and typically donât understand strong illusionism. Maybe many are open, though, Iâm not sure.
Makes sense. I just think what is âpoor understandingâ is often sufficiently contentious for one to have a high bar for preferring not sharing over sharing with little verification. I also tend to default to let people decide the extent to which they want to engage with something.
Makes sense. I was not clear. However, by âwithout wanting to take a stance on illusionism or realismâ, I meant many do not have a good picture of what strong illusionism means (and may be conflating it with eliminativism), and therefore are not taking a stance of the correct version of illusionism. I was doing this to some extent.
Verification is often easier than generation.
You may be interested in the article A science of chimeras? The implications of illusionism for non-human consciousness research. The abstract is below.