volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jessecoynelson when posting nonsense like this there's just not that much else to say other than calling it out for misleading the public and attempting to gaslight anybody naive enough to buy into the conspiracy theory.

It's not like you can do a deep dive here. The guy is just obviously wrong, and that's that.

It might be vaguely interesting to go into the problem with appealing to authority, but even that isn't all that interesting.

Some nutty guy said something nutty to Alex Jones.

One can call it out out of boredom but there's really not much more to say there.

@KeithDevlin Yeah from what I've been hearing there has been some talk about advisors and the dissertation committee needing to answer some questions about the accusations.

I would say that the student still needs to bear primary responsibility, but the department also has its own responsibilities to answer for here.

@jessecoynelson Oh no, I just really don't care about this guy because I know he is spouting nonsense and I can go to any bar any day of the week to hear some guy at the bar spouting off conspiracy theories.

Such people are a dime a dozen. Why should I bother sorting one from the other? The moment I see that he is saying things so clearly false, well, at least the guy at the end of the bar is more entertaining in his delivery.

This guy isn't even interesting, so why should I care about him?

And I might add, Alex Jones has such a terrible track record that anybody going on his show is already showing a lack of critical judgment.

So yeah, this guy is obviously wrong, selling a nonsensical conspiracy theory, and he might even believe it if he has such poor judgment that he would associate with Alex Jones.

But mainly, I just don't care who he is because he provides no value at all at this juncture.

@jessecoynelson I don't care who he is, when he is saying things that are clearly false, well, he's wrong.

And no, making a national holiday would not do anything to address voter fraud, and it certainly doesn't have anything at all to do with elections being bought.

Me? Oh I've been voting for years and never received my check. So much for that whole thing about elections being bought.

The guys just factually empty.

@KeithDevlin I believe the real accusation is about lack of attribution more than simply using others' work.

Some use of established language is natural, but the key is that it has to be properly attributed, and it's claimed that the president didn't do that.

@cjd hmmmm, is there an issue of backflow in a muffler to worry about?

What effect do you have in mind?

You stay classy, @Alphakilopapa @cpoliticditto@mas.to

@jessecoynelson Yes I intentionally chose my phrasing of sources LIKE Alex Jones 🙂

He's clearly wrong. And we know the statement is wrong because we've seen for ourselves that we vote and we exercise that regardless of anybody paying us.

So Alex and whoever he is interviewing are welcome to be wrong together, but we can easily debunk those conspiracy theories just based on our personal experiences.

@bigheadtales I just laugh about how now you're sounding like this is your defense against the outside world. You call names and make assumptions about people personally instead of actually allowing for ideas that don't confirm your biases.

No wonder you're so unaware of what's going on in the world.

No, I'm not a Republican. Yes you are wrong, but that has nothing to do with me, that has to do with your information sources that are not informing you.

@CarlataOld this setup is hilariously self-defeating.

The detected deep fakes were detectable! It's pretty circular.

@vvandinsky

@jessecoynelson and that kind of gaslighting is why nobody should ever fall for anything coming out of the likes of Alex Jones.

@bigheadtales again, I am letting you know that right now. This is me letting you know that.

I'm here by advising you of the thing that you are asking me to advise you off.

Nod.

@echoteecat Well if you give the model an exponentially larger set of coefficients to work with then you do get exponential growth without necessarily needing all that much in terms of expanded processing power.

It does take a lot more storage, which is what I hear the next versions of the AI models are aiming for.

To be clear I'm not really arguing. Yeah, it's probably going to involve more processing as well, but to me the limitations of storage for the model are pretty interesting.

@bigheadtales I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by bringing up right wing echo chambers.

That there's a gap in your knowledge has nothing to do with the echo chambers other people may live in.

@dlevenstein for further criticism, I don't think focusing on theory as problem solving is inclusive enough to really grapple with the role of the scientific method in the most fundamental science.

One could say that theorizing about string theory is trying to solve the problem of understanding that approach to reality, but I don't think that's the way most people think about a phrase like problem solving.

Maybe technically true but a strained description.

@echoteecat I believe four has already been trained.

A lot of the issue is in storage complexity not in processing.

@bigheadtales they don't just talk about it in private. From conservative radio through newspaper editorials they are quite public about it.

And their votes in Congress also put them publicly on the record acting in ways you don't sound familiar with

Yes, I understand that it sounds like your echo chambers haven't been informing you because that stuff doesn't fit the narrative, doesn't confirm the bias that the members of the chamber want confirmed.

And that's my point, that just because you're uninformed doesn't mean you're right. It just means that if you care about this stuff you should probably seek to broaden your experiences.

@nixCraft "um, unusual isotopic reactions?" :)

@dlevenstein I think this is a generally good way of talking about theory, but I do have one criticism: the focus on humans, bringing up research communities, and all of that.

It's not to say that they don't exist, but I would simply want to downplay their existence, not emphasize it, as I think one of the big values of the scientific method is countering the human factors that are, again, definitely in there and unavoidable.

Yes, the scientific enterprise is about humans solving problems identified by humans, but I would just avoid that wording and talk about the method addressing problems in the abstract.

All too often people get sidetracked about the value of science based on focusing on the human factors, so I would avoid that sort of language.