| |
| ▲ | sgarland 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But definitions can and are proven false. I hate it, mind you, but I can’t ignore it. For example, the usage of “literally” as an intensifier, e.g. “I literally died of laughter.” | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Logical statements can be proven true/false. Definitions are not logical statements, they do not have truth values, therefore cannot be proven neither true, nor false. These are mathematical logic basics. | | |
| ▲ | drdeca 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes. However, in some cases (though probably not the ones relevant here) a definition can be proven to be incoherent (or, to presuppose something false), which is vaguely similar to “being false”. | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It would be difficult for a definition to make any presuppositions. You could have a definition that defines some set in which a contradiction is involved ("an integer is special if it is both prime and divisible by 4"), but then you'd say that the set so defined is empty, not that the definition is incoherent. | | |
| ▲ | drdeca 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It is quite common for a lemma to be needed to ensure that a definition is well-defined. The term “defi-lemma” exists for a reason. As a simple example, suppose X is a set and r is a relation on X. If I define Y := X/r , the set of equivalence relations with respect to r, this implicitly assumes that the relation r is an equivalence relation. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Eisenstein 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But that is their whole point -- as much as you want to make the definition something else, you can't. And this is a perfect example of that. |
| |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You may notice that opinions are like assholes: everyone has theirs. Maybe. There's a known condition in pigs that prevents them from forming one. | |
| ▲ | AdieuToLogic 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Was this meant in response to what I wrote or did you mean to post this elsewhere in the thread? If the former, I'm not sure what am I supposed to do with this. | | |
| ▲ | AdieuToLogic 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Was this meant in response to what I wrote or did you mean to post this elsewhere in the thread? If the former, I'm not sure what am I supposed to do with this. You wrote: You may notice that opinions are like assholes: everyone
has theirs. They're literally just "thoughts and feelings".
They may masquerade as arguments from time to time, much to
my dismay, but rest assured: there's nothing to "refute",
debate, or even dispute on them. Not in general, nor in
this specific case either.
I provided analysis supporting my position that the project maintainers most likely did not make this policy based on "literally just 'thoughts and feelings'" and, instead, made an informed policy based on experience and rational discourse.I am not a Gentoo maintainer so cannot definitively state possibility #3 is what happened. Maybe one or both of the other two possibilities is what transpired. I doubt it, but if you have evidence refuting possibility #3, please share so we may all learn. | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | An informed opinion is still an opinion. Voting itself is an expression of opinion, which they participated in - if it merely followed logically, it wouldn't have needed to be voted upon. Mind you, the "experience and rational discourse" is not presented, not in the policy, not in the excerpts and link you just provided. In order to "refute" their entire position, if we accept that to even make sense (I do not), I'd need to either prove them wrong about what their opinions are (nonsense), or show evidence they were actually holding a different opinion that ran contrary to what they shared (impossible, their actual opinion is known only to them, if that). There's very little "logical payload" to their published policy, if any. It's a series of opinions, and then a conclusion. Hence my example with the person not liking a given TV show, but stating their distaste as a fact of the world. > I doubt it, but if you have evidence refuting possibility #3, please share so we may all learn. Why am I being rhetorically coerced into engaging with something from a false set of options of your imagination, exactly? | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I provided analysis supporting my position that the project maintainers most likely did not make this policy based on "literally just 'thoughts and feelings'" and, instead, made an informed policy based on experience and rational discourse. That position would look better if they hadn't relied so heavily on feelings to justify the announcement: >> Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. >> The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees [which ones?] and reduction of service quality. >> LLMs have been empowering all kinds of spam and scam efforts. There is no experience or rational discourse involved there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ants_everywhere 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're missing a very important reason 4 - There is a very active anti-LLM activist movement and they care more about participating in it than they care about free software. For example, see their rationale, which are just canned anti-LLM activist talking points. You see the same ones repeated and memed ad nauseam if you lurk on anti-AI spaces. | | |
| ▲ | AdieuToLogic 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You're missing a very important reason > 4 - There is a very active anti-LLM activist movement ... All I can say to this is that my position is Large Language Models (LLM's) are a combination of algorithms and data. As as such, for me they do not qualify as anything to be either "pro" or "anti", let alone a participant of an activist movement. | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They were not talking about LLMs being participants of anything, but people who are against LLMs in whatever capacity. Surely people can be participants of a movement. | | |
| ▲ | AdieuToLogic 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >> All I can say to this is that my position is Large Language Models (LLM's) are a combination of algorithms and data. >> As as such, for me they do not qualify as anything to be either "pro" or "anti", let alone a participant of an activist movement. > They were not talking about LLMs being participants of anything ... Clearly I was referencing LLM's being something to foment "an activist movement" in an attempt to de-escalate the implication of there being some kind of "anti-LLM activist movement." > ... but people who are against LLMs in whatever capacity. Surely people can be participants of a movement. At this point your replies to my posts appear to be intentionally adversarial. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
