The front cover of Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Grammar', with a small portrait and the title in a light greeny-blue. The title here has been altered to read 'Philosophical Grammarly'
It's what he would have wanted
Early versions of the LLM made Wittgenstein’s mistake of taking the world to be everything that is the case. The newest version avoids that error.
What are we told we can't have?
Without the additional negation this is one of the subintuitionistic logics studied by Restall in his article “Subintuitionistic logics “
A theater in Regent's Square in Pittsburgh had a Satoshi Kon festival one year I was there. I saw Millennium Actress there for the first time. It was fantastic. Seeing on it a big screen is really amazing, so I'm glad to hear you were able to do so.
Booping the Daily red panda
Why do people think the Turing test is abt machine intelligence? It’s clearly about OUR ability to discern/tell the difference given ONLY output/behavior concerning discreet tasks. Two completely different things. If you think otherwise, you didn’t read that paper correctly.
#AIethics #philtech
Realising I haven't advertised this here—I'm hiring! Walter Dean and I have a project on measuring the strength of mathematical theorems used in philosophy, and we're looking for a postdoctoral researcher to join our team.
www.jobs.ac.uk/job/DQO344/r...
I think you're trading on an ambiguity here. Anti-vax views are serious in the sense that a growing number of people believe them. They aren't serious in the sense of needing additional scientific inquiry. As far as I understand it, the safety of standard vaccines is extremely well confirmed.
I take it that the quoted post was denying that you should take them seriously in that sense. Great replacement and anti-vaxx may be views you can engage with in some way, but they aren't things you're going to disprove to someone committed to the views.
I feel like missing presupposes attempting, so this saying strikes me as a little silly
Counterpoint: whether true or not, it’s an excellent bit
I was today years old when I learned that "Butlerian Jihad" is some Dune thing and does not refer to the work of noted critical theorist Judith Butler
Is there a good omnibus tracker about how states and hospitals have rolled back gender affirming care for minors since 2025?
I read news here and there but I'm really hoping for something like a table with dates and specific interventions that have been discontinued.
I see someone's been reading Lakatos
While I feel like the causal inference group at CMU is on board, I feel like the logic group there will maybe pause at the suggestion "ignore counterexamples"
How about n=10000 but the samples are all isomorphic?
This is Bruegger. He learned a highly advanced new trick, demonstrating excellent use of both free will and spatulas. 13/10 (TT: maddmaddmad)
What about a sample size of one showing that your premises can be true while the conclusion is false?
The stable voting site is run by Wes Holliday and (I think) Eric Paucit. That may not be clear from the info on there.
Philosophers, specifically philosophy of language nerds:
Are there any clear examples of successfully defined or explicated concepts in the humanities?
Every example I can think of (e.g., square, planet, watt) are from the sciences
Do Law or Linguistics or Logic count as humanities? Also, hasn't the definition of 'planet' been revised in the recent past?
I feel like every British small town murder mystery series takes place in a seaside town. I know they're an island country, but surely SOME small inland towns are also full of secrets and murder.
Question for teaching philosophers: what texts do you teach that get your undergraduate students most excited?
I used one of those for a while in grad school! I couldn't use it for writing latex, but it was so useful for writing notes on things
Is there something about LLMs that you think importantly changes some of the issues involved or are LLMs just a good focal point for discussing these topics?
While I was reading this, I was imagining that happening, and getting upset on your behalf. Then I hit "of course". What a rollercoaster!
it is totally unobjectionable to use them (and cite them) in a paper. It's been like that since the 60s.
One other case that occurred to me is in logic you have a bunch of programs for finding proofs and/or models of certain types. These are not LLM-based, but they generally do things people can't do in any reasonable amount of time. You can't publish a paper with just those proofs/models, but
Doesn't that answer your question? Propositions are one thing (sets of worlds, eg) and then any additional content that is not that is non-propositional. That additional content can maybe be used to determine further propositions, but it seems reasonable to describe it as non-prop content.
