https://nitter.click/SwipeWright/status/2102498903568658907
The Boston Globe has just published a shockingly sober article about the nonexistent genocide supposedly targeting the transgender community.
In it, they cite a report I coauthored showing that the murder rate is actually lower for trans-identifying people than the general population. Our report was responding to the HRC's annual reports pushing the narrative that there is an ongoing "Epidemic of Violence" against the transgender community.
The reporter says he "offered the Human Rights Campaign's key researcher, the transgender woman Charleigh Flohr, or anyone else with the organization an opportunity to rebut the Manhattan Institute finding, but they didn't reply to me."
That's unsurprising because the HRC is engaging in fundraising propaganda. They don't care about the truth, only promoting the narrative.
Our report presenting the actual data is irrefutable. That's why they have nothing to say in response.
You can read our report summary in @CityJournal here:
๐ https://www.city-journal.org/article/human-rights-campaign-transgender-murders-white-supremacy
Or explore our comprehensive report here:
๐ https://dont-shoot-the-data.github.io/TCLEAR/
Read the Boston Globe article here:
Why do you think it's good?
I haven't asserted it's good. The other poster has a strong opinion that it's bad, I'm wondering why.
Burden shift. Defend your sloppage or piss off.
That's not how the burden shift argument works. Making demands to defend oneself creates the burden.
Anyways, why not? You seem to think there's a reason not to.
Aight, fair point, but if you can't understand the irony of posting Ai slop on "critical analysis" I genuinely can't help you. Surely you know that LLMs don't actually analyze anything, right? It's a glorified predictive text keyboard.
Why can't they analyze anything? A sufficiently advanced predictive text keyboard is indistinguishable from intelligence.
Indistinguishable from YOUR intelligence maybe.
Why do you think that's an insult, given the comment you replied to?
Because AI lacks the ability to think critically, and thus cannot analyze anything. The text above is the result of hundreds of weighted dice rolls, if you so will.
AI takes your prompt, then asks "What is the most likely continuation to this text?", then generates one word, then takes your prompt plus the word it generated, and asks the same question. Until it eventually generates a "finishing token" that tells it to stop generating. It's similar to what the middle button of autocorrect does, except with a lot more context and training.
This is not critical thinking, this is the generation of a piece of text that is statistically very likely to be a response to the prompt.
NOTE: "statistically very likely to be a response" is not the same as "a correct response". It might be correct, it might be completely wrong. The only thing that's for sure is that it is a text that probably responds to the prompt
Can humans actually think critically? Or are we just pattern matching, using trillions of dice rolls as our neurons zap each other?
If a model could predict a human's output throughout their entire life, how could it not be considered at least as smart as the human?
you are equating the complexity of the neurons in a human brain to the complexity of neurons in an LLM, even though both are at vastly different orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which the brain creates its results are different. LLMs and the human brain cannot be equated in that way. It's like saying humans can't think more critically or complexly than a slug (no offense)
Yeah, they're different, but so what?
Order of magnitude doesn't really affect the argument. Do you think LLMs will be smarter than humans when they have more neurons/complexity/whatever? Probably not, so just because humans have more of whatever for now doesn't mean anything.
You got it backwards, you need to prove that AI and humans are on the same level in terms of critical thinking. I proposed an argument as to why they are not, and you just made the baseless claim that humans work the same way. It saddens me that you think your ability to think critically is about the same as a weighted random number generator, but I guess this is just how it is. Have a nice day
I didn't make that claim. AI and humans clearly work differently, but you need to do more than point out the difference to make the claim that they're incapable of critical thinking. Why are you asserting that?