←back to thread

724 points simonw | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.564s | source | bottom
Show context
marcusb ◴[] No.44527530[source]
This reminds me in a way of the old Noam Chomsky/Tucker Carlson exchange where Chomsky says to Carlson:

  "I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting."
Simon may well be right - xAI might not have directly instructed Grok to check what the boss thinks before responding - but that's not to say xAI wouldn't be more likely to release a model that does agree with the boss a lot and privileges what he has said when reasoning.
replies(5): >>44528694 #>>44528695 #>>44528706 #>>44528766 #>>44529331 #
breppp ◴[] No.44528766[source]
and neither would Chomsky be interviewed by the BBC for his linguistic theory, if he hadn't held these edgy opinions
replies(2): >>44528838 #>>44529261 #
mattmanser ◴[] No.44528838[source]
The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however.

So while you're factually correct, you lie by omission.

Their attempts at presently a balanced view is almost to the point of absurdity these days as they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias.

replies(3): >>44528873 #>>44528897 #>>44532360 #
breppp ◴[] No.44528873[source]
I said BBC because as the other poster added, this was a BBC reporter rather than Carlson

Chomsky's entire argument is, that the reporter opinions are meaningless as he is part of some imaginary establishment and therefore he had to think that way.

That game goes both ways, Chomsky's opinions are only being given TV time as they are unusual.

I would venture more and say the only reason Chomsky holds these opinions is because of the academics preference for original thought rather than mainstream thought. As any repeat of an existing theory is worthless.

The problem is that in the social sciences that are not grounded in experiments, too much ungrounded original thought leads to academic conspiracy theories

replies(1): >>44529283 #
suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44529283[source]
Imaginary establishment? Do you think power doesn't exist?
replies(1): >>44530070 #
breppp ◴[] No.44530070[source]
power does exist, however foucault's theory of power as a metaphysical force pervading everyone's actions and thought is a conspiracy theory
replies(2): >>44531249 #>>44531648 #
1. suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44531249[source]
Chomsky was not a foucauldian at all and his criticisms are super far from foucault's ideas. You can watch the very famous debate they had to see how they differ.
replies(2): >>44531994 #>>44533133 #
2. breppp ◴[] No.44531994[source]
I read your reply to be alluding to the foucault concept of power, as it was in the context of power systems "censoring" ideas

furthermore, in this specific quote they do not differ a lot. maybe mainstream opinion is mainstream because it is more correct, moral or more beneficial to society?

he does not try to negate such statements, he just tries to prove mainstream opinion is wrong due to being mainstream (or the result of mainstream "power")

replies(1): >>44532238 #
3. breppp ◴[] No.44532442{3}[source]
> Are you six years old? Approval of slavery or torture used to be mainstream opinions

And also disapproval of cannibalism is a mainstream opinion, that doesn't change the fact that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral

> You have deeply misunderstood his criticisms

So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion

replies(1): >>44532558 #
4. suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44532558{4}[source]
>that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral

I know. You were the one who suggested the converse.

>So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion

The argument is not that mainstream ideas are necessarily false, that would be an idiotic position. The idea is just that the media has incentives to go along with what powerful people want them to say because there are real material benefits from going along. In fact, the whole point of the model is that it doesn't require a concerted conspiracy, it falls out naturally from the incentive structures of modern society.

replies(1): >>44532795 #
5. breppp ◴[] No.44532795{5}[source]
> I know. You were the one who suggested the converse.

No, you misread. I said if Chomsky wants to tackle mainstream ideas he needs to show why they are wrong. not just say they are popular and are therefore wrong because they were shoved down by the ether of "power"

> The idea is just that the media has incentives to go along with what powerful people want them to say because there are real material benefits from going along

Yes I understood, and that's why I said the same can be said about Chosmky, who has material benefits in academia to hold opinions which are new, are politically aligned with the academic mainstream and are in a field where the burden of proof is not high (although LLMs have something to say about Chomsky's original field). This is a poor argument to make about Chomsky as just like Chomsky's argument it does not tackle an idea, just the one who is making it

replies(1): >>44533195 #
6. Der_Einzige ◴[] No.44533133[source]
Chomsky is closer to Foucault than he will ever admit. Even critiquing critical theory/pomo shit from a position of "well you're relevent enough to talk to me, a god at CS" makes them seem like they are legit.

All the pomo/critical theory shit needs to be left in the dust bin of history and forgotten about. Don't engage with it. Don't say fo*calt's name (especially cus he's likely a pedo)

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-...

Try to pretend like you've never heard the word "Zizek" before. Let them die now please.

7. suddenlybananas ◴[] No.44533195{6}[source]
>I said if Chomsky wants to tackle mainstream ideas he needs to show why they are wrong. not just say they are popular and are therefore wrong

That is not the argument he is making.

>This is a poor argument to make about Chomsky as just like Chomsky's argument it does not tackle an idea, just the one who is making it

Because it is not meant to tackle a specific claim but rather the media environment in general. I'm astounded at how much faith you have in the media.

Chomsky is making the proposition "often the media misreports or doesn't report on important things" which is far from claiming "everything mainstream is false because it is mainstream".

replies(1): >>44533626 #
8. breppp ◴[] No.44533626{7}[source]
> Chomsky is making the proposition "often the media misreports or doesn't report on important things" which is far from claiming "everything mainstream is false because it is mainstream

I feel like we are going in loops, so I am not going to reply anymore. so last time:

He said that the only reason that the reporter is sitting there is because he thinks in a specific way, and that's pretty much a quote. That hints that the reporter opinions are tainted and are therefore false or influenced by outside factors, or at least that's what I gather. What I am saying is if that idea is true, it applies to Chomsky as well which is not there for being a linguist and whatever self selection of right or wrong opinions is happening in the media can also be said for the academics