would you consider yourself an expert?
quote:
Originally posted by pete_fiddlewould you consider yourself an expert?
I would say my expertise is in violin repair, setup, and adjustment.
I would say I'm knowledgeable in other areas but not an expert. In those areas I rely on expertise to come to conclusions or to be able to learn and understand more. I think you want to make a "gotcha" argument and suggest that deferring to expertise is no different with AI, but I wouldn't agree at all. Expertise is only valid because it comes as a result of exclusive and uncommonly accurate information, typically gathered over many years of careful study. If you rely on a cobbled-together mass of disparate information from sources, many of which are spurious, you are actually doing harm because you waste time that could have been better spent and because you risk the development of bad habits and the poisoning of others with the same bad information.
As an example, I trust the opinion of an expert at violin identification because the expert has an incredibly fine understanding of a certain region or style of making and will be able to recognize things I would never even realize or things it would take me many years of full time study to see. And I wouldn't take just any violin to just any expert--each major one has a focus of their knowledge. They might all do a lot to learn more about obscure makers, but you take their certificates to the bank because of their precise knowledge of specific makers. If it's a modern Italian, there is an expert for those, if it's an old Italian, there are experts for those. If it's a French violin, there are experts for those as well. If it's an American violin, you're out of luck, because, while there are several knowledgeable people, no one is an established expert (at least so far).
AI isn't expert in anything, it just copies behavior patterns and assembles information it can dig up through searching. Getting an answer to a question isn't anything specific to AI--you can get that from any search engine. What's unique to AI is that it intentionally mimics human patterns in order to look alike. The success of AI (at surface level) is based on its ability to integrate with humans without being noticed. If it works perfectly, you can hand in your weekend school essay assignment you forgot to write with a couple minutes of prompting an algorithm instead of saying "The dog ate it." But you still end up not actually having done the assignment, and if you read the AI interpretation and use it as your basis for understanding, you miss at least some of the nuance of the subject you were meant to consider. Teachers have long objected to the use of things like Cliffnotes and Sparknotes for similar reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by bacfireAren't all humans just rephrasing and regurgitating data they've learned from another human? And I believe we are all biased, whether we know it or not. I'm not a big fan of the whole concept of AI, but I recognize that its capabilities are astounding and are growing every day. Tech media has reported instances in just the past couple weeks where AI has solved previously unsolved problems in math and physics, then proved its work. All the criticisms leveled at AI so far are valid for humans as well. Even the motives are similar, except that you have to add in malice in our case.
In other matters, I spent ten years as an army officer and have never seen an "extremely controlled environment" in military operations!
I would disagree that all humans just do that.
But see point that certainly there are some humans, seems all have to offer, are just rephrasing and regurgitating data; mostly reciting text, answers, quotes. Maybe based on what they relied on, in erudite value of education, correct answers; gained from reading or lecture, as from external source; as it's more dictated, often the importance of vetted, argument from authority, (expert, certification, degree, award, fame); and thus importance of what gets repeated, recited, confirmed. Certainly initially on surface, can seem impressive. As well, involves feedback loop with confirmation bias (or rejected). From that POV probably doesn't need to be human, as not a lot of difference of what LLMs (Large Language Model) might be able to provide. As the OP exercises/questions demonstrate similar erudite output/answer, impressive seeming yet fairly generic. Maybe is all that is wanted, sufficient for those folks?
OTOH - Many other folks value and utilize on personal lived experience(s)... more concrete process, use their own observation, multi-sensory experience, feel, awareness, experimentation, discovery, what perceived; to engaged problem solving, working things out, and interaction. That forms own thought, ideas, concepts, understanding; abstraction, perceptions, and opinion. They have that experience and perspective to offer; share and relate to discuss, interact with other individuals. (authority/expert designation becomes moot).
AI does not build on truth or accuracy of information. It responds to whatever incentivized it. If it’s incentivized by bad information, it will promulgate that widely because it sees that as better based on the prompts it’s given.
Truth is only valuable to humans because of a moral imperative that does not exist for machines. It’s also uniquely human to synthesize personal experience and information gathered to form a perspective. A human who only gathers data lacks practical application and a human who only relies on personal perspective lacks reason and overall perspective. AI gathers data and then presents it according to an estimation of a human perspective or the experience that shapes it.
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful
Truth is only valuable to humans because of a moral imperative that does not exist for machines.
You've got more faith in human morality than is warranted by the evidence. Don't overlook that AI itself is an extension of human imperatives. Humans never agree about which imperatives stand above which others. Morality is a philosophical construct and doesn't exist as a fixed truth. Not to devalue it, but it must be negotiated among men and women. Perhaps that's what we're doing, I don't know.
>>I would disagree that all humans just do that.
OK, maybe there are a relatively few exceptional people who approach a problem from a new perspective and actually innovate. But outside of those few, I'll argue that most of those we see as top minds in their fields...geniuses even...are synergizing data and ideas collected and developed by others in new and innovative ways. As much as we all hate to believe it, AI is already showing it can do just that.
>>Truth is only valuable to humans because of a moral imperative that does not exist for machines. It’s also uniquely human to synthesize personal experience and information gathered to form a perspective.
But morals are not universal and and if you accept the concept of tabula rasa, those personal experiences can lead toward or away from the version of "truth" that you recognize. And while human personal experience is drawn from a varied, but limited pool consisting of the individual's exposure to the world, AL is accessing, analyzing, and synthesizing accounts of thousands of years of human experience. What AI currently lacks is judgment, but no human's judgment is infallible, and it's necessarily based on those limited experiences and information...and therefore, biases...of that particular human.
quote:
Originally posted by bacfire.But morals are not universal and and if you accept the concept of tabula rasa, those personal experiences can lead toward or away from the version of "truth" that you recognize. And while human personal experience is drawn from a varied, but limited pool consisting of the individual's exposure to the world, AL is accessing, analyzing, and synthesizing accounts of thousands of years of human experience. What AI currently lacks is judgment, but no human's judgment is infallible, and it's necessarily based on those limited experiences and information...and therefore, biases...of that particular human.
The moral imperative comes from the a priori. Reason is needed to make sense of the a priori and to build a code of ethics, but morality exists of itself apart from the individual. I don't accept tabula rasa because genetics negates it. I do think environment plays a large part in the shaping of behavior, but it is not the sole determinant. If so, behavior would be much more predictable and consistent among people raised in the same conditions.
Truth is an absolute. Perspectives may vary, but that does not negate truth. It may appear to you that two parallel lines intersect if they're extended far enough, but they don't actually do so (aside from theoretical conditions like in Lobachevski). Frame of reference may change observed data, but truth remains absolute. Understanding changes as mistakes are realized or new discoveries are made.
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Woodquote:
Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful
Truth is only valuable to humans because of a moral imperative that does not exist for machines.You've got more faith in human morality than is warranted by the evidence. Don't overlook that AI itself is an extension of human imperatives. Humans never agree about which imperatives stand above which others. Morality is a philosophical construct and doesn't exist as a fixed truth. Not to devalue it, but it must be negotiated among men and women. Perhaps that's what we're doing, I don't know.
Philosophy is a human construct designed to attempt to understand morality, which is something that exists with or without humans. Humans are flawed and can mostly only understand from an posteriori perspective, but through the use of reason it is possible to come closer to the a priori.
If you say that human morality is imperfect, I would agree, but only insofar as the imperfection comes from humans. Morality itself is not imperfect.
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulPhilosophy is a human construct designed to attempt to understand morality, which is something that exists with or without humans.
We part ways there. But I appreciate your honesty. Morality is an evolved human construct. Not arbitrary, but evolved as part of our nature. Other animals don't struggle with it. I believe your position is a religious one.
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Woodquote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulPhilosophy is a human construct designed to attempt to understand morality, which is something that exists with or without humans.
We part ways there. But I appreciate your honesty. Morality is an evolved human construct. Not arbitrary, but evolved as part of our nature. Other animals don't struggle with it. I believe your position is a religious one.
Have you never seen an animal display guilty behavior? A dog will often show signs of remorse for a behavior it knows is wrong (like chewing something it's not supposed to or stealing food from thr table). Some dogs will even begin to punish themselves for their transgressions (like sitting in a corner facing the wall). That comes from a sense of morality. Moral decisions aren't limited to domesticated animals, either. That's not to say that animals and humans necessarily experience morality in the same way, just that they also understand and partake in the transcendental form of morality in some way.
My argument is not specifically a religious one. I would say I'm much more aligned with Kant in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was not a strictly religious philosopher. He built in large part upon traditions passed down from Aristotle.
As for myself, I don't believe there is such a thing as a human who isn't religious. It's hard-wired into the brain and shows up in every life. You don't have to belong to a formalized religion to be religious--religious fervor can be found in many places that aren't labeled as religious. I would even say that the reason that MLMs recruit so many people is that they tap into the religious part of the brain without directly acknowledging it.
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin Beautifulquote:
Originally posted by Brian Woodquote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulPhilosophy is a human construct designed to attempt to understand morality, which is something that exists with or without humans.
We part ways there. But I appreciate your honesty. Morality is an evolved human construct. Not arbitrary, but evolved as part of our nature. Other animals don't struggle with it. I believe your position is a religious one.
Have you never seen an animal display guilty behavior? A dog will often show signs of remorse for a behavior it knows is wrong (like chewing something it's not supposed to or stealing food from thr table). Some dogs will even begin to punish themselves for their transgressions (like sitting in a corner facing the wall). That comes from a sense of morality. Moral decisions aren't limited to domesticated animals, either. That's not to say that animals and humans necessarily experience morality in the same way, just that they also understand and partake in the transcendental form of morality in some way.
My argument is not specifically a religious one. I would say I'm much more aligned with Kant in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was not a strictly religious philosopher. He built in large part upon traditions passed down from Aristotle.
As for myself, I don't believe there is such a thing as a human who isn't religious. It's hard-wired into the brain and shows up in every life. You don't have to belong to a formalized religion to be religious--religious fervor can be found in many places that aren't labeled as religious. I would even say that the reason that MLMs recruit so many people is that they tap into the religious part of the brain without directly acknowledging it.
Have you seen a dog act guilty to another dog, or only in relation to a person? Regardless, what makes any behavior proof of morality? Behavior has many causes. I agree that morality can influence human behavior, and that's a good thing, whatever its source. It's questionable if it can be applied to other species. I appreciate your reference to Kant. I believe he thought morality came from our ability to reason, again something not necessarily attributable to other species.
I do believe that by both our definitions of morality we can conclude that AI has none. It has no experience at all, I'm convinced. As far as I know mere computation does not create consciousness. By mimicking consciousness it is a very tricky tool because we're adapted to find meaning and intention where there isn't necessarily any. AI is not actually communicating the way two people do. It's a pretty scary invention and I don't understand why society treats it as necessary, inevitable even.
It has the collective and documented moralities of all of humanity dating back as far as the ancient Greeks, and can make good suppositions of undocumented archeological evidence from before them.
quote:
Originally posted by pete_fiddleIt has the collective and documented moralities of all of humanity dating back as far as the ancient Greeks, and can make good suppositions of undocumented archeological evidence from before them.
It draws from whatever has been published online, meaning it has access to any original sources that are put out but also to every synopsis of it and any commentary as well as every discussion posted. That means it combs through all of that information and collates it whenever it's prompted. It does not mean it functions according to the morality it describes when you ask it any moral questions. And it has no moral imperative to act one way or another, it follows the prompts it's fed. It has no more morality as a separate entity than a reference book does--it just mirrors behavior patterns to please humans so that they will further incentivize it.
And we as individuals do have a monopoly on morality?
quote:
Originally posted by pete_fiddleAnd we as individuals do have a monopoly on morality?
In my view, yes. It doesn't mean morality is relative or an illusion. It's Part of human's collective mental heritage. But humans also need laws because a sense of morality isn't reliable enough for large societies to get along, and there are plenty of moral dilemmas without clear solutions.
I see morality as the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative, a thing that exists a priori and gives sentient beings a sense of duty. Using reason (and with its organization, philosophy) we can operate from the categorical imperative and try to establish moral laws. Because we cannot fully realize the a priori, we make attempts, and the better-reasoned ones tend to be the more substantial and lasting ones. But imperfect as they are, they are subject to change, reinterpretation, or misinterpretation over time. I think our best chance of maintaining reason and inching closer to the moral absolute that the categorical imperative drives us toward it is the careful and regular use of reason. If we hand that over to algorithms, it goes directly against the categorical imperative and destroys our ability to discern morality in any capacity.
Socrates endured a tragic miscarriage of justice and was faced with the choice between accepting banishment and living somewhere else where his teaching would not be taken as a challenge to the city and taking hemlock. Socrates had already spent much time deliberating on the form for the perfect republic, and that of his city did not represent his ideas very well. It would have been easy for him to declare the city a loss and move on, but his love of the city, imperfect as it was, and his incredible sense of duty led him to choose death over exile. This was a shocking decision to the city but it was in many ways the most perfect expression of morality Socrates could make, and it reverberated throughout history. It would be an even greater loss than the death of Socrates for humanity to exile itself from reason when so much has been sacrificed to advance reason.
Now this is where i would ask Ai to concentrate on the task in hand....Lol ....
I find it somewhat risible but also horrifying that there are so many ads now for “articulation training” where you can pay for an AI to teach you to speak. It gets at what I was saying earlier about people changing their way of speaking with AI. Some of that is the result of trying to learn to be more effective communicating with it, but some of it is more like this example where the desire is to reshape one’s overall communication even with other humans. The ads feature different AI characters describing their age and mental clarity and attributing their “success” to the use of this new program that’s just been invented. So the upshot is that you’re being sold a product that’s supposed to make you a more effective human, but it’s an AI, and the way it’s being marketed is that another AI is pretending to be human to convince you to emulate it.
Reason is out to lunch.
In the wake of the growing backlash towards AI recently and the scandals surrounding it, I wonder if the people who were praising it are still so enamored.
As I read this thread I'm listening to Bruno Walter and the Columbia Symphony Orchestra's recording of Schubert's Ninth Symphony, "The Great." All I can say is "Heck." I've got perfection spinning on the turntable right now.
Edited by - Lonesome Fiddler on 04/11/2026 20:47:07
Will always be those who consider AI advice to be as reliable and better than human advice, and those who like human advice that is not ideal but natural and close to the soul, because it is felt with the heart and not just the mind.
quote:
Originally posted by soltyangWill always be those who consider AI advice to be as reliable and better than human advice, and those who like human advice that is not ideal but natural and close to the soul, because it is felt with the heart and not just the mind.
This much is at least true
There is a pretty strong backlash against AI already, and it’s surprising how much a lot of the people who developed it are now admitting that the concept was mostly wishful thinking from the start.
AI seems to have some uses for reducing labor or search time, but it doesn’t have much value for advice because it doesn’t have the ability to make sensible judgments. It can only mimic the information it’s fed, and by its design it is intended to please the user, not to be accurate. This is demonstrated extremely well in the AI arguments that are posted as rebuttals to arguments. The AI generated arguments are riddled with hallucinations and bad information, but the people who post the arguments are convinced that they’re authoritative, not because they’re at all accurate, but because they’re framed in ways that stroke the egos of the users enough to distract them from the rational or factual inconsistencies of the arguments.
One of the biggest problems with AI is that you have to constantly check everything it suggests for accuracy because it’s constantly wrong. With a knowledgeable person you have a much higher chance of accuracy. Humans can also make mistakes, but the percentages are lower as expertise increases.
As a concrete example, Dario D’Attili was once a premier expert in violin identification. His word was the final say on precious violins and people quite literally took his word to the bank in buying violins. As he got older, he started to make mistakes for various reasons. Once this was discovered, his reputation was destroyed. Nowadays, a D’Attili certificate is useless other than as a bit of nostalgia, even if it’s completely accurate. The probability of inaccuracy has negated all the accurate information. This is also why certificates need to be updated periodically—certificates are valued for their accuracy in comparison to the expertise of the most knowledgeable person at the moment.
It is fed information from the ancient Greeks to cutting edge technology. just ask it what you want to know and it will give a plausible answer lickety split....Take it or leave it. Edit: or come up with a better answer yourself.
Edited by - pete_fiddle on 05/18/2026 10:27:46
quote:
Originally posted by pete_fiddleIt is fed information from the ancient Greeks to cutting edge technology. just ask it what you want to know and it will give a plausible answer lickety split....Take it or leave it. Edit: or come up with a better answer yourself.
No, it'll give you an answer it expects you to like. It doesn't have access to all knowledge, only that which it's given. And it can't tell which information is good and which is bad. It feeds on phenomenology.
AI is not concerned with accuracy, which is why it asks you if the information is good--it's not asking if it's factually correct, it's measuring your response to the presentation and treating it as good if you like it. But if you don't realize it every time it makes a mistake, you unintentionally make it more inaccurate with every mistake because you further teach it to rely on its estimation of your personality traits rather than the accuracy of its information.
According to AI, I've been in business longer than I've been alive. I suppose that's a compliment in a weird way.
It seems ironic to have an AI bot commenting on AI advice. But, here we are!
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Privacy Consent (EU/GDPR Only)
Copyright 2026 Fiddle Hangout. All Rights Reserved.
