Ooker

Why is this question bad?

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

I see. Thanks for replying. I wonder if we move the topic to how your interest works, would that be your interest?

-1

-2

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Here is the full dialog, in case you are still interested.

[Bob posts a problem about data classification]
Alice: You should use LLM. It especially suites your problem
Bob: In my understanding LLM is only strong where the context is large. If the context is small then using regex gives better result? Also, regex has advantages of high accuracy, fast, understandable and debuggable?
Alice: Not really. Also, regex cannot work with synonyms and it must be in form. LLM is trained on multiple data, so if you make good prompt then it's much better
Bob: But the nature of catching synonyms is still depending on context. As the context is small then there is not much synonyms

... (read more)

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

That said, I'm now shutting down this conversation :) I'll read any further responses, but probably won't further engage.

Thanks for your patience. Your response is by far the most useful one I have. I really appreciate that.

If you find replying a short sentence isn't much burden, can you tell why you don't want to continue this conversation? Is it because continuing it doesn't stimulate your interest as you have on it in the beginning? Can you share why?

2

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

They could have a valid debate about budgets (both dev and runtime costs) and precision-recall tradeoffs, and whether the problem is simple enough that it's anywhere close to true that the rules will fit in someone's head in order to be testable and debuggable.

I'm not sure what "it's anywhere close to true that the rules will fit in someone's head in order to be testable and debuggable" means. I guess you just mean if the problem is simple enough then the rule-based approach is better. Is that correct?

I'll assuming yes here. While Bob indeed doesn't mention explicitly about budgets, I guess we can all assume that everyone wants budgets as low as... (read more)

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

I see your point. I think it's time to tell the specifics.

[Bob posts a problem about data classification]
Alice: You should use LLM. It especially suites your problem
Bob: In my understanding LLM is only strong where the context is large. If the context is small then using regex gives better result? Also, regex has advantages of high accuracy, fast, understandable and debuggable?
Alice: Not really. Also, regex cannot work with synonyms and it must be in form. LLM is trained on multiple data, so if you make good prompt then it's much better
Bob: But the nature of catching synonyms is still depending on context. As the context is small then there is not much

... (read more)

5

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

I guess it all comes down to this question: when Bob says T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C, or C doesn't apply to the problem, why that is the evidence for him to haven't tried it, but not the evidence that he has actually tried it? You said that:

It is very unlikely that Bob has tried T1, since he gave a very weak theoretical argument in favour of using T2 instead, rather than a much stronger and practical argument "I tried T1, and here's why it didn't help".

But I don't see how saying "T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C, C... (read more)

2

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

I can of course provide full detailed, but in the interest of keeping it as general as possible (or, to understand where further generalization is not possible), I want to get deeper on this before provide more specifics.

I agree that "you are reasoning badly from evidence we agree on" or "you need to both measure and reason a lot more clearly" are also reasonable interpretations of "you are reasoning too much". But isn't that the other sentence "You should try it first" makes the "you are empirically testing too little" interpretation more likely?

Can you simplify "idiosyncratic triggers of internal states"? Also, if most people are bad observers, then wouldn't that it's more helpful for them to have direct experience with it?

7

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Do you mean that how the evidence is obtained in different problems and domains determines whether saying "You should try it first. You are reasoning too much" is still giving reasons on why T₁ is better? Can you elaborate or give examples?

Have they not agreed on the problem or on what would constitute a solution?

I suppose it's because Bob isn't aware of all the things he needs to say before posting the question, and Alice assumes on what he needs while he thinks he doesn't need it.

9

1

0

Replying toAlice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker2y*

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

should Bob have tried , he would likely respond in another way

Why doesn't saying "T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C" indicate that he has tried it?

Yes, I haven't read the Sequences yet. Just the new user's guide. To make it quick, can you give me the section that's relevant to the question?

By "their perspectives", whose? If Alice's, then I think she would say all of them are incorrect. Because that's her position at the beginning. And that's useless information, since I don't know why she thinks so. If I know then I wouldn't ask this question at the beginning.

1

0

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

Ooker

Ooker

How can one be less wrong, if their conversation partner loses the interest on discussing the topic with them?

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Ooker

Ooker

Ooker

How can one be less wrong, if their conversation partner loses the interest on discussing the topic with them?

Alice and Bob is debating on a technique. Alice says Bob should try it before denying it. Is it a fallacy or something similar?

Context

Reasoning