Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 3 days agoAfter they kill Wikipedia history will be AI hallucinations.message-squaremessage-square109linkfedilinkarrow-up1414arrow-down115
arrow-up1399arrow-down1message-squareAfter they kill Wikipedia history will be AI hallucinations.Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world · 3 days agomessage-square109linkfedilink
minus-squarebane_killgrind@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoAlright, thanks for confirming my opinion.
minus-squareseeigel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·1 day agoYou are welcome. What’s your opinion if you don’t mind me asking?
minus-squarebane_killgrind@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day ago That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.
minus-squareseeigel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 day agoI was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted. You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential. There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.
minus-squarebane_killgrind@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoDefine “tainted”, “wrong”(your word I never used that word) and how the context of history is not required to detect such things. Define what we know in a way that doesn’t have a historical basis.
minus-squareseeigel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·20 hours agoHow does science know if something is true, with experiments.
minus-squarebane_killgrind@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·19 hours agoYou apparently have no idea
minus-squareseeigel@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·19 hours agoEnlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way? Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.
minus-squarebane_killgrind@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·19 hours agoNah. Define your axioms like I said. If you won’t, you can’t.
Alright, thanks for confirming my opinion.
You are welcome.
What’s your opinion if you don’t mind me asking?
I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.
You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.
There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.
Define “tainted”, “wrong”(your word I never used that word) and how the context of history is not required to detect such things.
Define what we know in a way that doesn’t have a historical basis.
How does science know if something is true, with experiments.
You apparently have no idea
Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?
Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.
Nah. Define your axioms like I said. If you won’t, you can’t.