Yeah, I was always shocked by the popsci factoid stats about communication happening primarily via tone and such, it seemed crazy to me that some people use that as primary meaning and not in addition to fully understanding the semantics of being said, or that they could even be influenced by the actual choice of words even if the meaning is unchanged, but I guess I was just lucky.
What’s really shocking above all for me lately is how few people care about intellectual honesty, and will blatantly go for the most self-serving falsehood no matter how blatant.
I wouldn’t claim something I couldn’t back up in some way not because I’m just inherently a saint - on a purely selfish animalistic superego esque way - I wouldn’t do it because it would hurt my self-esteem to blatantly lie in a self-serving manner because it’s just kinda pathetic to have to resort to that.
Emotional space is easier to navigate than semantic space, and people are lazy. The best LLMs have parameters in the multiple 100s of billions and they’re not able to parse at a human-level. That’s more neurons than’s in the human brain (~86B). I’m not even sure what my point is, too lazy to keep the thread. I’ma take a nap. You take care.
I wrote a paper for English in college, which I wouldn’t write the same way today.
I started with a shocking, racist statement that I held up as an example of things that aren’t acceptable. I spent the rest of the paper both refuting that and drawing parallels to other things that shouldn’t be acceptable.
My shocking statement was effectively taken at face value, and I was originally given a D on the paper. I went back and argued it into a B, because it really wasn’t what it seemed at first, if you just read it.
That attention getter sure got attention though. I don’t remember if that was part of the assignment.
I tend to have this writing style often enough that my super power is convincing people to do the opposite of whatever I’m advocating for. There’s at least one famous Lemmy example from me.
Yeah, I was always shocked by the popsci factoid stats about communication happening primarily via tone and such, it seemed crazy to me that some people use that as primary meaning and not in addition to fully understanding the semantics of being said, or that they could even be influenced by the actual choice of words even if the meaning is unchanged, but I guess I was just lucky.
What’s really shocking above all for me lately is how few people care about intellectual honesty, and will blatantly go for the most self-serving falsehood no matter how blatant.
I wouldn’t claim something I couldn’t back up in some way not because I’m just inherently a saint - on a purely selfish animalistic superego esque way - I wouldn’t do it because it would hurt my self-esteem to blatantly lie in a self-serving manner because it’s just kinda pathetic to have to resort to that.
Emotional space is easier to navigate than semantic space, and people are lazy. The best LLMs have parameters in the multiple 100s of billions and they’re not able to parse at a human-level. That’s more neurons than’s in the human brain (~86B). I’m not even sure what my point is, too lazy to keep the thread. I’ma take a nap. You take care.
I wrote a paper for English in college, which I wouldn’t write the same way today.
I started with a shocking, racist statement that I held up as an example of things that aren’t acceptable. I spent the rest of the paper both refuting that and drawing parallels to other things that shouldn’t be acceptable.
My shocking statement was effectively taken at face value, and I was originally given a D on the paper. I went back and argued it into a B, because it really wasn’t what it seemed at first, if you just read it.
That attention getter sure got attention though. I don’t remember if that was part of the assignment.
I tend to have this writing style often enough that my super power is convincing people to do the opposite of whatever I’m advocating for. There’s at least one famous Lemmy example from me.