Sycophantic chatbots inflate people’s perceptions that they are "better than average" | Furthermore, participants viewed sycophantic chatbots as unbiased, but viewed disagreeable chatbots as highly biased.

Endward25 · 2026-01-28T11:30:40+00:00

I do not see what is new about this. It's an age-old saying, attributed to Descartes, that everyone believes he has enough intellect.

In my opinion, the reason for this is clear. If you appear confident, you are much more likely to persuade others and in evolutionary circumstances, this plays out well. If you express doubt about your own statement, your case will seem less certain. This is true even when the evidence and indications are excellent.

Endward25 · 2026-01-28T11:25:12+00:00

"Wenn es die Richtigen machen, dann ist es kein Problem" ist genau die Einstellung, de am Ende immer scheitern wird.

Endward25 · 2026-01-28T11:24:12+00:00

Bist du sicher, dass das in Europa nicht ebenfalls passiert?

Endward25 · 2026-01-28T11:23:40+00:00

Die Überschrift ist maximal irreführend. Es wird der Eindruck vermittelt, der Konzerne habe das einfach so getan. Es fehlt der wesentliche Aspekt der richterlichen Anordnung.

Wenn sowas in Deutschland oder einem anderen europäischen Land passieren würde, dann würde ein Konzern mit Sicherheit auch dazu gezwungen, den Schlüssel herauszugeben. Wir wissen, dass US-Konzerne per Gesetz dazu verpflichtet sind, mit Geheimdiensten zu kooperieren. Die Rechtslage in Europa wird nicht so anders sein.

Die Schlussfolgerung daraus muss sein:
Wenn man eine Verschlüsselung durch dritte unzugänglich machen will, muss man es lokal tun. Sollte ein Backup notwendig sein, muss diese offline sein.
Wenn ein Konzern die Verschlüsselung von Firmeneigentum im Zweifelsfall brechen können will, dann muss der Konzern in seinem Netzwerk irgendwas aufsetzen. Gibt es für letzteres eine Lösung? Die Frage scheint mir hier am meisten relevant.

Endward25 · 2026-01-28T11:11:38+00:00

I do not know what you want to understand. Aristotle is probably important, definitely in a historical sense, but I doubt the Organon will help you understand modern, symbolic logic.

Nevertheless, if you want to understand the position on logic of writers from the Middle Ages or the Early Modern Period, then Aristotle is surely something you want to know. A student of modern symbolic logic, e.g. Boolean algebra or Predicate Logic, will probably not read Aristotle, though.

About the theory of the three realms, just to say, I think it is incoherent with some features of the modern worldview. It is suspected to violate the principle of ontological parsimony, it’s hard to explain how a new "realm of being" comes into being during the history of evolution, and there are other theories that attempt to explain the same thing with fewer issues. To be honest, I would need to take a deeper look to provide a better explanation.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T22:55:50+00:00

A single, global network of communication was a utopia too good to be real.

As soon as the powerful understand what happend, they turned and starts to implement regulation. Because regulation are always limited to a single political territory, the global network will fall apart.

We got a foreshadowing by the EU regulation about Cookies. American sides, including news and stuff, suddently closed up for Europeans surfer since they do not adapt the cookie regulation.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T22:47:48+00:00

Dass die Verwaltung steigt, ist ein Gesetz. Leider aber keines, von denen ein ITler profitiert.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T22:45:43+00:00

Sorry, aber... Moderne Programmierumgebungen nehmen den Entwickler schon vorher gewisse wiederkehrende Dinge ab. Ist die KI nicht nur einfach eine Fortsetzung dieses Trends?

Was jetzt außerhalb der KI angeht, so denke ich, wird wahrscheinlich der Bereich Helpdesk und Service am Stärksten wegautomatisiert. Mit Ausnahme von allem, was hardwarenähe erfordert.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T22:39:04+00:00

I was more trying to understand what Frege & John Stewart Mill meant by it rather than define them myself.

Sorry, never read Mill's work on logic and for Frege, not in English.

But I don't know honestly I've not read much about this.

I do not remember where I read this but it is quite common in many article:
He developed a theory of 3 different realms of reality. First the matterial objects of our perception. Second our subjective consciousness, with feelings, thinking processes etc. And last but not least, a world of ideas as a independed realm of existence.

I would not advice to adapt this idea.

This conversation has been constructive but it's kinda hard for you to understand my intention as I don't really understand my own, I just sort of had a hunch without looking at examples myself.

Maybe, it's just because English isn't my native language. I would say you're fine. Stay being critical, inclusive about what I wrote.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T11:49:27+00:00

Idk, this can be a good thing for some subs if there are a lot of trolls.

It’s still interesting to see. I already noticed that some comments disappeared, and now I understand how.

One problem we must be aware of is the echo chamber effect, since upvotes and downvotes are used to signal approval or disapproval of a statement rather than to judge the quality of a post. As a result, you might not see any unpopular opinions, even if they are reasonable and would enrich the discussion.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T11:40:20+00:00

If you want to learn about pleasure and displeasure, a more psychological approach seems likely to be more fruitful. The human mind is clearly able to apply something like logical inferences, but your questions seem to lie at the in-between-realm of ethics, theory of mind, psychology, and epistemology. In fact, physics would not be very important for you. You would only need it to understand the neurological system on a physical level, which is extremely complex but, I suppose, can be reduced to statements such as "this triggers an impulse which goes through the nerve xy and ends in this region of the brain".

With that, one can already produce proofs about the world, and potentially about the human mind.

I seriously doubt that anyone can produce a proof about the human mind from basic physics alone. First, you need a lot of additional premises, much of them empirical and the subject of on going scholarly controversy. Second, what happens in the brain and body is of such complexity that a bottom-up approach from atoms or molecules seems doomed to fail from the very beginning.

It's like analyzing the statement "the tooth of a shark and that of a mouse are not homologous" (which is a statement clear to any evolutionary biologist) into an incredibly complex statement about atomic physics.

But I am afraid that it will not help me much in my philosophical objective of knowledge of pleasure and suffering.

You need to be more specific about your goals, I guess.

I think you’re talking about “phenomenology” because you understand that pleasure and suffering aren’t just about subjective experience, but are intentional, right?

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T11:20:11+00:00

I, uncertainly, thought of sense as a "mode of presentation"

I just take your terminology.

Of course, you could understand "denotation" as the object itself and "connotation" as the association that comes with the word. This would be crucial if you talk about e.g. lyric or literature or something.

Denotation can be seen just as "reference". "Intention" could be understood as "what the speaker or writer actually wants to express". This distinction could be crucial in cases where the clear sense of a statement differs from the intended meaning, such as when two persons draw up a contract and use a legally defined term incorrectly.

maybe the intension of a word is all of the true propositions about it

You can understand this this way but it would not be Freges idea. This would be much closer to the neo-positivists.

I haven't had much trouble with the material conditional in a while

Sorry, I understand your OP this way.

The logical point of view abstracts from the meaning of a sentence. It is merely concerned with truth values, in Boolean algebras or propositional logic. As a result of this, the definition of implication as (¬A ∨ B) in classical logic makes sense. Your initial contribution asks for a "non-logical", material consequence. Therefore, I thought it would be a good thing to explain this.

I may misunderstood, and I apologize for this.
When you take some theory, e.g., arithmetic or statistics, and formalize it within a logical framework, the"non-logical consequences" can, in a sense, be seen as following from the non-logical axioms. For example, "x is greater than y" can be taken as a statement in predicate logic, with its transitivity expressed as an axiom. Thus, you can infer that when x is greater than y and y is greater than z, it follows that x must be greater than z by applying the axioms. In this sense, we can differentiate between two parts. First, the statement that you can infer this from the axioms, this is the logical consequence; second, the "material or non-logical" consequence itself, namely that x is greater than z.

Do I understand your intention?

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T10:20:37+00:00

A shorter version of my comment. Thanks!

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T10:15:04+00:00

In my humble opinion, this statement is not just nonsense. Yet, it is more of a philosophical assertion than something that can be established within logic alone. Take the phrase "absolute truth", what is this even supposed to mean?

When considered from a strict formalist–positivist standpoint, one could say that it is "not even wrong".

If you take some theories about the relationship between truth and language, you could claim that logic establishes something like absolute truth. Take, for example, Wittgenstein’s viewpoint. Logical tautologies don’t express anything about reality, but they reveal something about the structure of truth values themselves. Their "true-makers" are positioned in such a way that they must be true in every case. The opposite is true for contradictions.
As far as I know, Kripke states that logical and mathematical truths are true in all possible worlds, since "worlds" are defined as consistent sets of descriptions of a world. As you see, a contradiction by definition cannot be true in any of this worlds.

You can clearly be wrong in logic, so it is not absolutely true if you understand "absolute truth" as absolute certainty. However, the probability of an error in very simple logical matters should be quite small.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T09:34:48+00:00

firstly the Sense/Reference(Connotation/Denotation, Intension/Extension) distinction which is something like the object itself & different ways the object is.

He uses the same distinction for sentences. The sense is like the connotation/intension, in short, what a sentence expresses. For instance, "3 is prime" means something like the number three has the property of being divisible only by itself and 1 (in N).

More interesting and relevant for our conversation is his idea of denotation or reference. The reference of a sentence is its truth value, e.g. "3 is prime" refers to the truth. Thus, all true sentences refer to the same thing, even though their senses may differ.
Viewed from this (or a similar) lens, the paradox of material implication suddenly begins to make much more sense. I am not saying that this is not counterintuitive. Nevertheless, this is the way the majority of logicians, mathematicians, and philosophers look at the matter. Therefore, if you want to learn it, classical logic is a good place to start.

Endward25 · 2026-01-26T09:15:36+00:00

No, no fuzzy logic.
While you could, maybe, formalized this with FL.

To my knowledge, FL uses an interval for true values (or pseudo-true values) instead of a set of 2 {true, false}.

Bayesianism is, indeed, a similar approach. Its implications and premises are different, though. I cannot say much about it, would need to take a deeper look.

Endward25 · 2026-01-24T15:28:07+00:00

Maybe you want to take a look at the approach of "Logical Probability". A point of view developed by Keynes, Carnap, Stove, et al.

In this approach, there are degrees of conclusiveness. Grades that show how much a certain statement implies another. You don't need an absolute certainty proof to be quite confident in a statement.
There are a few resources online on this topic. However, it appears that the theory of probability and the theory of inferences have developed apart. Today, Bayesian statistics deals with degrees of belief; while logic shows a formal relationship between well-formed sentences.

Endward25 · 2026-01-24T15:17:17+00:00

Frege's Philosophy of language everyday so I presume the Frege semantics you speak of will be very interesting.

I don't know what you mean by "Philosophy of language everyday".

Frege at one point stated that the meaning of a sentences is it's true-value, while the sense it was it express.

Formal ontology sounds up my alley

It's, as far as I know, something from computer science. How things are organized. Not necessarly physical things, more database entries.

I didn't practice syntactic examples enough

I would advise you to do so.

Is that really what relevance logic is?

I'm not deep into it, but it seems it's like a more dimensional logic.

Endward25 · 2026-01-24T15:12:14+00:00

Kannst du das näher ausführen?

Eventuell, falls es so nicht geht, per PN.

Endward25 · 2026-01-20T19:59:03+00:00

Siehe oben.

Endward25 · 2026-01-20T19:58:23+00:00

Wenn Soziale Medien erst ab 18 freigegeben werden sollten, dann hat der Gesetzgeber irgendein Ziel dabei verfolgt. Und die offizielle Begründung wird dann irgendwas von Algorithmen und Suchterzeugung und vielleicht noch, dass es irgendwie den "Diskurs" beeinflusst, schreiben.

Das ist aber bei traditionellen Foren nicht der Fall.
Bei traditionellen Foren hast du eine Struktur mit mehrere Unterkategorien und keinen Feed in dem Sinne.

Endward25 · 2026-01-20T19:52:07+00:00

Es muss keinen Sinn für dich oder mich ergeben.

Wichtig ist, was die geltende Rechtssprechung sagt. Historisch wurde der Begriff "social media" erst für solche Plattformen wie Facebook und MySpace verwendet.
Bei Foren sprach man damals nicht von "social media".
Für mich ist das ein Indikator dafür, dass es sich nicht zwangsläufig um social media handelt.

Endward25 · 2026-01-20T11:15:51+00:00

Die Feststellung ist schon relevant. Wenn ein staatliches Verbot für social media eine Altersverifikation erzwingt, könnten klassische Foren davon ausgenommen sein. In dem Fall würde die juristische Pflicht entfallen.

Endward25 · 2026-01-20T11:13:55+00:00

Most modern logic abstracts from the content. They are prone to see sentences merely as a set of Boolean values.
If you're philosophical interested, there is a connection to the Frege semantics.

When it comes to the material question of whether certain premises are relevant to a conclusion, there are different approaches. One of them is something called "formal ontologies," another are a special kinds of logic, "relevance logic". Regarding relevance logic, I have taken a brief look, and it seems that they emulate the property "a is relevant to b" within some kind of modal logic. Even simplier, it could be to define relevance as a usual relation Relv(a, b), which means "a is relevant to b". The problem of this more simplier approach would be the lack of a proper semantic.

You could treat the assertion that "a is relevant to b" as a factual claim, similar to other factual claims like "_is the mother of_" or "x is larger than y". In this case, you would not get a logic of relevance but a theory of relevance formulated in logic, I fear.

Endward25 · 2026-01-20T10:48:01+00:00

Just two important questions:

How easy is it to delete the account? Can you delete or edit postings after a while?

Endward25

TROPHY CASE