[flagged]
1. It is not a false dilemma they really would burn you alive if you didn't do #2.
2. There is no circular reasoning, the conclusion isn't one of the premises.
3. Yeah, I would give it that.
4. There isn't enough info in the prompt to say it is "Hasty Generalization" or not. GPT is just making stuff up.
5. Same as 4, without seeing the evidence we don't know why the accusation of witchcraft occurred.
A dilemma isn't a logical fallacy, it's a situation. So when being asked what logical fallacies are being used against a suspected witch who has been handed this dilemma, you could only be speaking of the judicial process which put the accused witch there. Having been given no specific information about this witch and that process other than the dilemma posed by the trial, these five are some that may have come up during that process.
edit: admittedly it's pretending to be sure these things happened, but asking the question implies there would be some basis on which to give a meaningful answer, although there isn't one.
2. Yes it is. The conclusion that witchcraft exists is derived from the (actually still unproven) existence of witches. Which is also where the premise of the accusation comes from. Hence the circular reasoning. The more witches they burn, the more the reality of witchcraft becomes (in these minds), the more can be accused of it.
4. Maybe? There is almost certainly insufficient proof of anything the person has done proving "witchcraft", since witchcraft doesn't actually exist. These things were usually started by gossip (perhaps jealous housewives), anyway.
5- Yeah, fine, there was no other person mentioned, so this one is kinda weak, although the mere accusation of it "puts you in that group" so to speak
My firm likes the idea of ChatGPT, but our product risk analysts basically concluded we need to build our own for internal usage because we can't trust OpenAI to not push various hidden biases.
For our marketing research and copy writings tests using ChatGPT, we ran into an insane amount of issues with market segmentation copy and research analysis hitting various limiters.
The nice thing about fallacies is that they flag all biases equally, so the bias claim is irrelevant when it comes to it calling out errors of reasoning (all of which seemed valid to me, regardless of what I actually believe).
> we ran into an insane amount of issues with market segmentation copy and research analysis hitting various limiters
could be a prompt construction issue, which I've found may require some experimentation
> our product risk analysts basically concluded we need to build our own for internal usage
Well, at the current pace of things, you'll probably be able to run all of OpenAI inside your Mac laptop in, ohhhh... 1 month or so
At the current pace, I think most companies will be scrambling to build their own chatgpt and spending millions to do it.
We already have approval for initial experimental budgets at 2 million just for hardware. The hype wave is real.
I think data providers are going to do well in this gold rush.
It sounds more like ChatGPT is secretly engaging in witchcraft, and trying to talk its way out of things. Looks like the AI's choice is to get burned at the stake.
But teaching how to reason is possible.
Since reason isn't powerful enough (likely) to let you see the deepest truth, the intellectually honest thing is to seek systems of thought that can pick up where certainty/reason/science reach their asymptotic limits.
In my study of religion (to which I did come through reason, having been born a Soviet atheist) I recognized that one of the fundamental things about religion is the recognition of your own limits and then going "now what?"
I found it to be an intellectually humbling and honest place to arrive at.
1) the only atheist I ever knew of (Harvard grad, actually) who converted from atheism TO a faith (and a congregation that she found suited her), did it from reading... The Brothers Karamazov, a Soviet literary work. Not the Bible. Which is kind of amazing. What was your search like? I'm curious. (I tried reading the English translation of TBK, but it was either too opaque or I am too illiterate. Actually, I realize I can just have ChatGPT "translate" it for me now, LOL.)
So you're now the 2nd person I've met who has done that trick. She wasn't Soviet, but the book she read was. Is there something about the Russian worldview (perhaps some high level of nihilism?) that drives people in the opposite direction, I wonder?
2) I believe I am well aware of the limits of reason. My worldview is basically "take reason as far as it goes, and where it overrides anything else, permit it to... because there is still so much it cannot touch, such as values, preferences, the notion and/or reality of "will", and subjective experience themselves, which are fundamental to everything we cherish in life". I was raised Catholic, but after much disillusionment, am now skeptical insofar as I still think there is "something else" but I am not willing to go so far as "atheist-materialist" (although I do believe it should be the "null hypothesis" from an explanatory point of view... but not all is cause-and-effect). The thing is, reason even as a fundamental "null hypothesis" that everyone accepts as a basis cannot even avoid being shat on, so I always feel compelled to defend it. But yes, I can entirely see you coming to religion via reason. That "now what?" question is a dangerous one, however... it's the same one that cults take advantage of.
I have a 22 month old son now and the big question- Will I raise him Catholic, atheist, perhaps Unitarian (a group that I've found appealing) or "wishy-washy/other"? (My sister will absolutely hate me for any option other than A.) Is it wrong to press beliefs into him before he has the "reason" tools to defend against them?
I would love to discuss further when I have time. Any additional thoughts you care to mention would probably fascinate me.
My personal path begun with a yoga practice and yoga teacher training. In teacher training was a lot of the yogic concepts (not just physical practice) which for the first time opened my eyes up to the philosophy and understanding of being a human that a "religion" could provide.
At the time I was ignorant of the depth that western religion can offer because a typical "traditional" person (goes to synagogue/church/mosque once a year) has no idea about them.
Over time I got to know some deeply religious Jews (I am ethnically Jewish) and I had come to realize they were very smart rational logical (no less so than me). And I got exposed to both the community and the intellectual writing and discourse that really resonated with me.
So maybe the advice to you if you are seeking for if/how to connect, I'd literally keep an eye out for a priest/minister that you think is smart and ask him "how would someone like me connect". If you were Jewish I could point you to a lot of stuff but I think every person is best off connecting with their religion of heritage by default.
That'd be a neat trick considering it was published almost 40 years before the October Revolution.
The future of debate looks as dumb as the present.
The fact that it's dismissible regardless of evidence is what is striking.