258
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
258 points (90.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2199 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
First of all, precisely because it is LLM, it is good to point out that it is a source.
Second, the LLM and chat GPT4 in particular can often summarize information quite well. Yes, there are cases when it hallucinate, but at this point it is very rare for GPT4. So, when I do not have hours and hours to spend on some topic like this, asking ChatGPT4 is a valid strategy to get reasonable probability correct answer, with much higher probability than random claims here in fediverse.
So, I will defend the method as reasonable, and will ask you, do you claim that what is stated is false?
You are posting a position you don't even necessarily understand. You are providing what might be facts or maybe not. Might be subject to bias in training data. What do you think this adds to the discussion? You want someone to disagree with stuff you don't even know?
I don't have time for that bullshit so I asked ChatGPT to write a rebuttal. I'm not even going to post the whole thing, just the following excerpt:
"It’s crucial to understand that transgender women are individuals whose gender identity is female, regardless of their assigned sex at birth."
This right here is why posting AI answers is garbage. It's not just flat out wrong, but insists that this nonsensical garbage is crucial to your understanding.
And for what it's worth I'm a big fan of AI. I use it all the time. I've written applications that leverage it. I've had it help me with coding issues. But I never, ever trust it.
I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.
Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.
So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.
And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?
Fool proof*...
Thanks, corrected.
You aren't correcting anything. You are using chatgpt as a source and using adjectives you don't even understand. You failed the test.
Its actually foolproof... Well in your case, maybe not so much.
In the short term, yes. What this leaves out is that two years of HRT is enough to negate those physical benefits. Hormones are powerful shit.
Also, no it fucking isn't a reasonable method. It has neither the credentials to know what it's talking about, nor any obligation to verify that what it says is true. Imagine reading 10,000 shitty sci-fi novels and 1 textbook and thinking you can piece together advanced physics. It literally cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, nor does it care. It's a machine. Garbage in, garbage out.
I suggest you to ask ChatGPT4 questions in medicine and biology, and keep tally. If you truly think ChatGPT4 is garbage, you will be surprised. I spent lots of hours interacting with it, and I understand its limitations and strengths. And these kind of questions it usually answers quite well.
Considering you think it's a substitute for a scholarly source, I doubt that. Once again, this is a machine designed to repeat things it heard. It's a mechanical parrot. ChatGPT4 did not earn a degree. It did not study. It does not fact check. It does not give a solitary fuck about the scientific method. If you cannot see why this would be a problem for its credibility, then I can't help you.
You just tried to use a glorified markov chain in an argument. Suffice to say I do not believe that you are the best judge of factual accuracy in regards to said tally.
I suggest you yourself test it, do not rely on me. It is experimentally can be shown as quite good predictor for these kind of questions. Don’t want to test yourself and don’t believe me? There a lot of tests were done of these models showing that they are already at the level to pass many exams. Your claim that it does not have any credibility is totally unfounded.
Also, I never claimed that it is a substitute for scholarly source, I would never use it in a scientific paper. But I would not use Wikipedia either. But we are on internet on discussion board, the standards here are different. At least I supplied a source, majority of posts here don’t do that, including your statements, by the way, implying that ChatGPT4 has no credibility.
Even if we assumed ChatGPT were completely accurate, that answer includes enough weasel words so it is not sufficient here.
varies significantly among individuals … might retain …. may not completely reverse
All this tells us is that making this fair is not an easy answer, anything more is individual interpretation. It probably needs some sort of medical consensus.
How did they choose four years? Did they pull that out of their asses, or was there medical input? Is there a reason to expect ChatGPT to be a better source than what they used?
Four years was number given in the question, because this number was selected by boxing rules.
As for the rest, are you suggesting that a post for discussion on internet should have the same level of credence as scientific article or article in encyclopedia? Why suddenly such super-high standards to my poste? Coincidently, no-one, despite criticism of my use of ChatGPT, pointed on even single mistake in that text.
It doesn’t need a mistake.
You’re complaining that four years of hormone therapy is insufficient without knowing where that came from or why, but we’re saying we’re not listening to Aunt Marge as more of an authority.
I have no idea whether their decision is sound or what facts they base it on, but I’m also not taking Au t Marge’s word for it that they’re wrong