

Right, there’s nothing wrong with disagreement because it just means people have different perspectives. Discussing these perspectives in a civilized fashion creates a more complete understanding for everybody. That’s what debates are meant for, people present their positions and defend them, so that the counterparty can point out problems or inconsistencies. And through this process you build shared understanding of things.
But when debate happens in our media is just a spectacle of idiots yelling at one another and talking over each other incoherently. And that’s presented as providing different views. There’s no depth, no substance, and no actual debate happening. It’s just a bunch of people yelling I’m right.
And that’s a broader problem in the media too now where there’s no more investigative journalism. The media outlets simply parrot whatever the official narrative is, there’s no analysis, no historical context, and no push back. In a sense, the only real debate happening is the one between mainstream and social media. And, in a way, it’s kind of hilarious how regular people do a better job explaining things now than professional news outlets. Hence why social media is winning the debate.












I mean they want that, but it’s just not happening with the way the tech works right now. Unless you have a deep understanding of the problem you have the model solve, then you have no way to evaluate whether it solved it correctly or not. And it’s basically like an evil genie where it will interpret your request in a dumbest way possible by default. So, you get god results when you already know what the shape of the solution should be, and you give the model concrete direction on the approach to take, algorithms to use, and so on. And that’s why the whole idea of deskilling workers or replacing them with automation is not really working out. You’d need genuine artificial intelligence for that and LLMs aren’t it.