The burden of proof is on the author to provide at least one type of eval for making that claim.

I notice that the number of people confidently talking about "burden of proof" and whose it allegedly is in the context of AI has gone up sharply.

Nobody has to proof anything. It can give your claim credibility. If you don't provide any, an opposing claim without proof does not get any better.

▲

prodigycorp 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sorry I don't know how engaging in this could lead to anything productive. There's already literature out there that gives credence to TeMPOraL claim. And, after a certain point, gravity being the reason that things fall becomes so self evident that every re-statements doesnt not require proof.

	▲	xgulfie 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		LLM quirks are not something all humans have been experiencing for thousands of years

▲

jmye 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Nobody has to proof anything. It can give your claim credibility

“I don’t need to provide proof to say things” is a valueless, trivial assertion that adds no value whatsoever to any discussion anyone has ever had.

If you want to pretend this is a claim that should be taken seriously, a lack of evidence is damning. If you just want to pass the metaphorical bong and say stupid shit to each other with no judgment and no expectation, then I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe X is better for that.