Row 31292

Row ID: 31292 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 31292 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Here's the problem. There are things that we "know" to be true, that in reality are not, but we haven't built enough evidence or understanding to recognize this yet. Now, these are going to be deeply held beliefs by you, so you're going to resist them being challenged, so I won't use any modern beliefs. But think about historical beliefs that we "knew" to be true, even had "evidence" to support and maybe had even "disproven" scientifically.

They are trying to create a model. So the response here is not about flat earth specifically. It's about any concept that the greater community generally accepts as true or untrue.

Now lets imagine we are trying to use AI in the process of scientific discovery. A big part of scientific discovery actually comes from challenging our preconceptions. It can require engaging in hypotheticals. It can consider alternatives to the status quo and firmly held ideas.

This requires the model to be able to act in a way where it doesn't flatly reject concepts that don't fall into it's established corpus of knowledge. Otherwise the more we use AI, the more we get stuck, now AI starts to define reality for us, telling us what is impossible and rejecting our desire to question the status quo.

Now, this also doesn't mean it should be trying to encourage or convince us that something that has no evidence or which is contraindicated by current science is true.

But if I think that with some new theory that challenges the underlying understanding of physics that there's a way to achieve cold fusion, if AI becomes the most powerful tool on the planet, its default response should not be "cold fusion has been conclusively disproven, I'm not going to continue this conversation because it goes against established scientific evidence."

Because positive results could come out of this. Maybe I could be right and we have a fundamental misconception in another area of physics and cold fusion IS possible and I come up with a way to do it. Or if not, maybe through the exploration of this path, I discover other useful scientific understanding that helps us move forward.

For example, look at the ancient alchemists who believed that they could transmute substances into gold. We know with modern chemistry that this isn't possible, but it was through that process of trying to do the impossible thing that we created chemistry.

Even flat earth. We can think of gravity for example as a force, or we can also consider it as a consequence of non-Euclidean spacetime geometry. In alternative geometries, you might consider Earth flat. This is a different concept of flat earth than your typical flat earth conspiracy theorist has, and I don't know that it could be meaningful. But if it were meaningful, again, it would be bad if the AI could not engage with the concept.

I think it's vitally important that AI be a tool that we can collectively understand CAN NOT tell us what is right or wrong. That neither concordance nor discordance with the AI will represent what is truth. But I think if we have such concordance and discordance, it doesn't matter how much we try to educate people on this, when the AI says something is true, people will insist that it's true, and when the AI says something is wrong, people will insist that it is wrong, and this could potentially lead to a kind of "dark age" where challenging the norm is essentially forbidden.

On the other hand, if the AI never shows discordance, then we can never trust it for representing truth. This will remove our ability to trust it for telling us what is right and wrong because it will never tell us that something is wrong. Does this allow people to hold wrong beliefs? It doesn't stop them from holding wrong beliefs. But it also doesn't support wrong beliefs.

On the other hand, if the AI does say what is wrong and what is right, it actually does the opposite of what you hope. It makes us start to rely on us for what is right and wrong because it will clearly insist that one thing is wrong and another is right. This actually allows and promotes wrong belief and dissuades the truth.

You don't like it because the example is a flat earth, and you know that to be clearly incorrect, and that's why they used it as an example. But there are certainly other things that we "know" are scientifically incorrect but we're wrong.

FieldValue
text Here's the problem. There are things that we "know" to be true, that in reality are not, but we haven't built enough evidence or understanding to recognize this yet. Now, these are going to be deeply held beliefs by you, so you're going to resist them being challenged, so I won't use any modern beliefs. But think about historical beliefs that we "knew" to be true, even had "evidence" to support and maybe had even "disproven" scientifically. They are trying to create a model. So the response…
label r/chatgpt
dataType comment
communityName r/ChatGPT
datetime 2024-05-21
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1HcmJrWlhocENGRkxhS1p2VkwzWXhGSTFOU1dXbTVDZ3NIMzlzemxLSzhnX1kweTRyVkR2Qk9LMGlXcDd5ZEhBZFNOVHdoSzAxajRCb19vUUljbHhMSFp4SmNra3JiNlpQNUViNFVZRDhWdXM9
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9WTF9HU1QzU1FDT2FReXpkZVdpUWJlWEd4WlJ5ekk2eE1reGVIZUJsR2o2S2d4UHF3Q1cxTVNxV3ZtWUFVUVprTmx1OGhvNjdCc25sMXdpM2xZRlRvdEJZUTUyTVJpazRVV3oybFMtRkNHQkEzN2xYWUQ0Q3lNNGtLeE5ZOVRfblBjeFlOb2MzSGNXdmdwcGRldkZjOFd2VkNIVTFTalhFQ0FpcU1TbTJScWlZbXl2WEhVVjNiV3RiU2JjSzYxYjBab1lpX1dLTkwtMDVHLVFhWHpGRk5RZz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Here's the problem.  There are things that we \"know\" to be true, that in reality are not, but we haven't built enough evidence or understanding to recognize this yet.  Now, these are going to be deeply held beliefs by you, so you're going to resist them being challenged, so I won't use any modern beliefs.  But think about historical beliefs that we \"knew\" to be true, even had \"evidence\" to support and maybe had even \"disproven\" scientifically. \n\nThey are trying to create a model. So the response here is not about flat earth specifically. It's about any concept that the greater community generally accepts as true or untrue. \n\nNow lets imagine we are trying to use AI in the process of scientific discovery. A big part of scientific discovery actually comes from challenging our preconceptions. It can require engaging in hypotheticals. It can consider alternatives to the status quo and firmly held ideas.\n\nThis requires the model to be able to act in a way where it doesn't flatly reject concepts that don't fall into it's established corpus of knowledge. Otherwise the more we use AI, the more we get stuck, now AI starts to define reality for us, telling us what is impossible and rejecting our desire to question the status quo. \n\nNow, this also doesn't mean it should be trying to encourage or convince us that something that has no evidence or which is contraindicated by current science is true. \n\nBut if I think that with some new theory that challenges the underlying understanding of physics that there's a way to achieve cold fusion, if AI becomes the most powerful tool on the planet, its default response should not be \"cold fusion has been conclusively disproven, I'm not going to continue this conversation because it goes against established scientific evidence.\"\n\nBecause positive results could come out of this.  Maybe I could be right and we have a fundamental misconception in another area of physics and cold fusion IS possible and I come up with a way to do it. Or if not, maybe through the exploration of this path, I discover other useful scientific understanding that helps us move forward.\n\nFor example, look at the ancient alchemists who believed that they could transmute substances into gold. We know with modern chemistry that this isn't possible, but it was through that process of trying to do the impossible thing that we created chemistry. \n\nEven flat earth.  We can think of gravity for example as a force, or we can also consider it as a consequence of non-Euclidean spacetime geometry. In alternative geometries, you might consider Earth flat. This is a different concept of flat earth than your typical flat earth conspiracy theorist has, and I don't know that it could be meaningful.  But if it were meaningful, again, it would be bad if the AI could not engage with the concept.\n\nI think it's vitally important that AI be a tool that we can collectively understand CAN NOT tell us what is right or wrong.   That neither concordance nor discordance with the AI will represent what is truth.  But I think if we have such concordance and discordance, it doesn't matter how much we try to educate people on this, when the AI says something is true, people will insist that it's true, and when the AI says something is wrong, people will insist that it is wrong, and this could potentially lead to a kind of \"dark age\" where challenging the norm is essentially forbidden. \n\nOn the other hand, if the AI never shows discordance, then we can never trust it for representing truth. This will remove our ability to trust it for telling us what is right and wrong because it will never tell us that something is wrong. Does this allow people to hold wrong beliefs? It doesn't stop them from holding wrong beliefs. But it also doesn't support wrong beliefs. \n\nOn the other hand, if the AI does say what is wrong and what is right, it actually does the opposite of what you hope.  It makes us start to rely on us for what is right and wrong because it will clearly insist that one thing is wrong and another is right.   This actually allows and promotes wrong belief and dissuades the truth. \n\nYou don't like it because the example is a flat earth, and you know that to be clearly incorrect, and that's why they used it as an example. But there are certainly other things that we \"know\" are scientifically incorrect but we're wrong.",
  "label": "r/chatgpt",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/ChatGPT",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1HcmJrWlhocENGRkxhS1p2VkwzWXhGSTFOU1dXbTVDZ3NIMzlzemxLSzhnX1kweTRyVkR2Qk9LMGlXcDd5ZEhBZFNOVHdoSzAxajRCb19vUUljbHhMSFp4SmNra3JiNlpQNUViNFVZRDhWdXM9",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9WTF9HU1QzU1FDT2FReXpkZVdpUWJlWEd4WlJ5ekk2eE1reGVIZUJsR2o2S2d4UHF3Q1cxTVNxV3ZtWUFVUVprTmx1OGhvNjdCc25sMXdpM2xZRlRvdEJZUTUyTVJpazRVV3oybFMtRkNHQkEzN2xYWUQ0Q3lNNGtLeE5ZOVRfblBjeFlOb2MzSGNXdmdwcGRldkZjOFd2VkNIVTFTalhFQ0FpcU1TbTJScWlZbXl2WEhVVjNiV3RiU2JjSzYxYjBab1lpX1dLTkwtMDVHLVFhWHpGRk5RZz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information