WotC Would you buy WotC products produced or enhanced with AI?

[Mournblade94]

But if the textual-analysis thing doesn't tickle your fancy, how about law? Law is among the humanities. It very clearly has methods for ascertaining the truth, and those methods emphatically are not science. They certainly do listen to science! Science is very useful for helping us make policy, write legislation, enforce legislation and regulation, etc., etc. But law is not science, and it should not be science.

Law makes Truth? The only truth it makes is arbitrary. Often counter to the truth of science.

I have taken loads of humanities classes because my minor was medievel literature. The textual Analysis is completely subjective.

 

[Sulicius]

Yes it can. But all major companies are using AI now, they won't ignore it because they are to scared of losing an advantage. Customers can only hold this tide off for so long before it is forced on them because its "How things are done".

Plastic Packaging is the worst thing to happen to our consumerism for pollution, and it greatly effects health through endocrine disruptors. Many customers want to stop it. Have we gone back to Paper and cardboard packaging? In small niches. But nothing has stopped the convenience of plastic. Not even microplastics in human breast milk.

AI art is no sort of a problem compared to this. The companies will use it, and not enough customers will ban it. If the end product is good I wouldn't ban it so I'm not disparaging anyone. If it looks good is all I care about. I'm not really interested in the artistic endeavor itself. I DO try to ban plastics as much as I can though. So its all what matters to the end consumer. In aggregate I don't think the end consumer cares enough to stop it.

Sun Chips invented a material that was biodegradeable for their chips. It wasn't plastic. Why did people reject it? It was too noisy.

Sure, and yet people try. I don’t care what others do, I won’t buy into it.

 

[Mournblade94]

Sure, and yet people try. I don’t care what others do, I won’t buy into it.

That's fair enough

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The scientific method does work. People are bad at applying it. (I include myself there). That's why science is done as a community.

Let's talk about the luminiferous aether. Or the caloric fluid theory. Or how high-atmosphere lightning doesn't exist. Or Newton's laws. Or if we want to get really spicy, Lysenkoism.

The scientific method(s) do work--imperfectly. They help. I have never and would never say otherwise. As I've said, this is literally my chosen career.

I just recognize that this method is not the shining beacon of 100% perfection people wish it was. That scientists are people, part of a society that makes choices for reasons other than the austere and dispassionate search for unvarnished truth. That science is a social activity, and thus subject to some limitations which can cloud its vision at times. And, as I have said, that it is not the one and only path to truth.

There are truths that cannot even in principle be reached purely by measuring and counting. But that is all science can do; that's literally what empirical study is. Hence, there is also more. Admitting this is not a slight against science. It is the frank admission that science is an essential part of our search for truth, but not the one and only thing allowed to produce truth.

The fact that I have roused so much suspicion and interrogation merely by saying this, all while taking every possible opportunity to emphasize how important science is and always will be? Yeah, kiiiiiinda making my point about the way STEM folks get angry when you merely point out that the humanities actually matter, actually do uncover and generate real truths, in ways that science simply cannot do because they are different tools for different purposes.

Do you think it is possible to prove whether or not Plato himself wrote it?

Within a reasonable degree of doubt, sure.

Is it possible to prove to you that quarks exist? I know the science on this specific subject. You can't observe bare quarks in the current universe; the weirdness of the strong force prevents it. It isn't hot enough anymore. Yet I assume you accept that they do exist, even though theory says you literally can't observe them, and no observation of quarks themselves has ever been made.

 

[Incenjucar]

Last I checked, Millenials are Killing entire categories of products, so I am not planning to just give in to what corporations want me to do. I've boycotted certain corps for longer than some 5E players have been alive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

agreed, which is why this is not arriving at a truth, it is a best guess and unverifiable (assuming you made no mistake in your analysis that would falsify it)

Then science is the same. It is at best a guess and unverifiable.

After all, Newton was flatly wrong. His laws are lies. And yet we still call them laws?

It’s not that it does not tickle my fancy, I disagree with it reliably arriving at a truth, and I do not see law doing that either. At best whatever evidence you base the verdict on was based on something backed up by science, at worst you arrive at a wrong verdict

Are both better than a die roll, sure, do they verifiably reveal a truth, no.

It is exactly this sort of hostility and snobbery that I dislike so.

And I am a scientist. I want to keep that front and center here. Science is my home. I'm just rather keenly aware that science too easily becomes scientism.

 

[Incenjucar]

Then science is the same. It is at best a guess and unverifiable.

After all, Newton was flatly wrong. His laws are lies. And yet we still call them laws?


It is exactly this sort of hostility and snobbery that I dislike so.

And I am a scientist. I want to keep that front and center here. Science is my home. I'm just rather keenly aware that science too easily becomes scientism.

Indeed, science is intended to be approached with humility. Without humility there is doctrine which cannot be questioned, which is the antithesis of science.

 

[mamba]

Then science is the same. It is at best a guess and unverifiable.

yes, science never proves anything, it can only be falsified, but at least it agrees with the empiric data. You have nothing to verify your theories against for the other disciplines.

After all, Newton was flatly wrong. His laws are lies. And yet we still call them laws?

gravity still exists, and except in extreme cases it does not matter much whether you use Newton or Einstein

I wager that if he had been completely off we would not call them laws any more, much like we generally do not take spontaneous generation serious any more

 

[The Firebird]

Let's talk about the luminiferous aether. Or the caloric fluid theory. Or how high-atmosphere lightning doesn't exist. Or Newton's laws. Or if we want to get really spicy, Lysenkoism.

The scientific method(s) do work--imperfectly. They help. I have never and would never say otherwise. As I've said, this is literally my chosen career.

You're mixing up two claims. The first is "the scientific method works perfectly 100% of the time". This is true.

The second is "everything that scientists say is therefore accurate". This is false.

The scientific method does work, when it is applied correctly and when there is sufficient data. Hence, Newton's laws are out, high-atmosphere lightning is in. When this is not the case, the scientific method is not actually being followed.

That does not imply that scientists always apply this method correctly, or that there is sufficient data for the conclusions they state to be stated without reservation.

The problem is that you're reading more truth or confidence into "what science says" than is appropriate, or than the scientific method itself would tell you to, and then concluding the method itself is flawed.

There are truths that cannot even in principle be reached purely by measuring and counting. But that is all science can do; that's literally what empirical study is. Hence, there is also more. Admitting this is not a slight against science. It is the frank admission that science is an essential part of our search for truth, but not the one and only thing allowed to produce truth.

The fact that I have roused so much suspicion and interrogation merely by saying this, all while taking every possible opportunity to emphasize how important science is and always will be? Yeah, kiiiiiinda making my point about the way STEM folks get angry when you merely point out that the humanities actually matter, actually do uncover and generate real truths, in ways that science simply cannot do because they are different tools for different purposes.

You've, uh, aroused my suspicion and interrogation because you made a false claim about science. Nowhere have I stated that science is the only thing that can produce truth. Indeed, I explicitly stated the opposite.

I think the humanities are very important; more important than the sciences, if you're interested in living a good life. I think we can recognize that without disparaging the scientific method.

 

[Dire Bare]

Then science is the same. It is at best a guess and unverifiable.

After all, Newton was flatly wrong. His laws are lies. And yet we still call them laws?


It is exactly this sort of hostility and snobbery that I dislike so.

And I am a scientist. I want to keep that front and center here. Science is my home. I'm just rather keenly aware that science too easily becomes scientism.

Science is your home? And you are calling Newton's Laws "lies"?

Okay.

I mean, you're arguing with folks who are essentially saying science is imperfect, but it's one of the best tools we have to understand our environment and ourselves. A lot of what you are saying is, of course, correct . . . but your tone is oddly hostile.

Newton's Laws are "lies"?

I'm not a physicist, but Newton's Laws are not lies. They have been accepted consensus science for so long because his theories fit the data as we understand it. If physicists have improved our understandings in recent decades, disproving Newton's Laws . . . I'll believe you (if you're a physicist) on that, but that doesn't make Newton a liar. It just means we've improved our knowledge. That's how science works.

I teach Earth Science to middle-schoolers . . . hardly a scientist although I have the degree and training . . . our ideas of the Earth's structure are constantly changing and evolving, not because earlier scientists "lied" but simply because our technology and understandings are constantly improving. What I learned in middle school is different than what I teach my students, and will likely be different than what the next generation gets taught.

Science reporting by the mainstream media sucks. Your average citizen doesn't always have a good understanding of how the scientific process works. Sure. But condescension from scientists towards layman doesn't help any.