politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Lowering the bar on access to contrary information will probably play a factor.
As long as you need to search, filter, read, and analyze to realize that something is BS, there's far less people that will do that.
Within a few years LLMs will be good enough they can do most of that work for them, and have a back and forth that immediately addresses counterpoints.
I think we'll see a significant spike in the number of people leaving conservative religious traditions when that's the case.
LLMs can currently be convinced that God exists, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that.
When you can ignore 1000 detractions and cling to a single flimsy confirmation of your bias, the problem isn't the quality of the information available and how it's presented, it's the quality of the person and their willingness to reason.
I really don't understand how people watching a technology that goes from experts saying "XYZ will be impossible for the technology" in 2019 and then having that very thing happen only three years later in 2022 with researchers having a surprised Pikachu face so regularly refer to it as if the present state of the tech is going to remain a status quo for the foreseeable future.
You do realize it's going to continue to improve at a ridiculous rate, right?
Even the version that exists today has managed to have over a 100% increase in its performance on various evaluations simply by researchers better learning how to use it over the past year. And we're likely getting a new leap forward in the models themselves next year.
I wouldn't be so quick to ignore thousands of indicators the technology is advancing to stick with the notion the tech isn't going to make a difference based on its present limitations.
I didn't say the tech won't improve, I said the basis of the point being made - to educate the religious away from religion - won't occur. That has everything to do with challenging philosophical conjectures or unproven belief systems, and nothing to do with ChatGPT's ability to produce content that could be convincing or build upon it given more input.
Part of my work involves using and integrating ChatGPT with other systems. I see the the evolution right in front of my every day, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to my point.
It's often hard to see the forest when you are focused on the trees.
If you read the article, look at what changed his mind, look at other deconversion stories, and look at where the tech is going in ~3 years, then I guess I just really don't see it the same way as you, as to my eye it will make quite a bit of damn difference when someone beginning to question can have the heavy lifting of self-education significantly reduced.
If you're willing to extrapolate the experience of one believer and their opinion, then yes, but that's not enough for me.
And treating my experience working directly with said technology as narrower than it is, is your prerogative, but I don't know why you'd expect me to take your opinion seriously after doing so.
I used to think the same thing about massive amounts of people being able to connect to each other (instead of only a few gatekeepers being able to blast out information in one direction) and have easy access to the "information superhighway" in the days when the Internet was being opened up.
These days...I am a bit more skeptical about some of my fellow humans becoming more enlightened due to a change in tech. I think it might be possible that people become even more stupid.