Raw LLM Responses

This debate was disillusioning. These are, of course, extremely intelligent persons, and yet their reasoning in a chiefly verbal domain is shockingly inferior to their raw intellects. I wonder if this has to do with ability tilt, or if specialisation has enveloped their capacities and left little room for general erudition. the latter is a very good case for stronger emphasis on a liberal arts education, the former… perhaps we need to really encourage people with verbal, non-verbal, and mathematical aptitude to enter into fields where synergising these strengths is paramount. _Both_ sides here showed a poor understanding of philosophy, of verbal logic, of how to parse arguments and tease out sophisms. both displayed a dearth of clear, impartial consideration. both did not truly appreciate the best arguments for real risk, and therefore could not hope at convincingly combatting them. The whole discussion was littered with fallacies. I think people can acknowledge these gaps in competency — as in psychology in the early 20th century, when engineers and statisticians invaded and made possible an objective interpretation of human behaviour, so too should those who perceive these errors in thinking, and who can also apprehend the mechanisms underlying deep learning and programming more broadly, elect to participate in one of the most important developments in history.