logoalt Hacker News

avianlyrictoday at 1:16 AM1 replyview on HN

Isn’t the entire paper is trying to point out that the second you ask the question “Do LLM have <anthropomorphic property X>”, you have to assume that they do, even before you make any assessment?

Just because the person asking the question isn’t aware of they’re implicitly making that assumption, doesn’t change the fact that a logical assumption has been made. It just makes the questioner ignorant of the assumptions they’re making.

Personally don’t totally understand the argument being made in the paper. But I can understand the idea that I can ask a question, without properly understanding the assumptions I’m making when asking the questions. Indeed I can also understand that I might not even notice the assumptions I’ve made with my question, and why that would make my entire exploration and conclusion invalid, _after_ doing the investigation. Logical fallacies can be really difficult to spot and understand.


Replies

NooneAtAll3today at 5:49 AM

> the second you ask the question “Do <things> have <property>”, you have to assume that they do

being able to imagine something doesn't mean believing in it?

I completely fail to understand the argument

I feel like there's some mistake in confusing 2 meanings of "assume" - one where it's close to 100% probability and one where it's close to 0% probability.

show 1 reply