loonsun

Why did you put so much time in if you didn't like it

Mine doesn't show it, I'm on boost

Did you get the short or long form?

They however have many issues with doing so, the most important here being the need for prior knowledge to understand context. Semantic meaning in text based on the principles of the distributional hypothesis that underlies embeddings has a flaw in that it doesn't consider context not directly in the text to ascribe meaning.

For example if I wrote everyday on reddit "God I love pizza" you wouldn't be able to tell without prior context if I'm an Italian food fiend or I have a cat named Pizza.

While LLMs are good patern recognition machines they don't inherently create valid correlations and can't understand causation.

It's not "traditional" in that it isn't part of the formal economy when it comes to how someone earns money. Its a part of the idea of the "informal economy" which is massive but less defined.

They posted the replication crisis and said that its an "art" to know which science is grounded in evidence and which is not.

You're right, its not solved. It's not really a problem than can exactly be fully solved and definitely not within the current structure of the journal system and the publish or perish of academia like you mentioned.

Your other post however is the nuance completely missing from what OP said which is that we do already have ways of rooting out consensus and empirical support through the hierarchy of evidence.

I pretty much agree with you, what I was annoyed about is the vague dismissal of what has been done to improve science. It's not an art to know what is good scientific work, it's still a science and evidence based policy and action is needed now more than ever.

Also let's acknowledge that just posting the Wikipedia of the replication crisis and saying that makes scientific theory development invalid is total bullshit.

First that this issue was brought up ~20 years go. Second that the advancement of meta science has remedied these issues a lot. Third that we are now far more open about science with organizations like OSF. Fourth that in the example of the comic these are usually arguments against highly replicated works like climate science not small niche areas of psychology the public doesn't interact with.

It can be both

You were just the first comment in the thread when I opened the post so 🤷

That wouldn't make sense in this graph as then you'd get into the minutia of that happening everywhere like Québec being 37.5h as full time

It's paid time off dude, these aren't happiness stats