Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:19 am

This has ALREADY BEEN DONE. So, WHY do you want to KEEP DOING what HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

Copyright 2021 PL Olcott

The above has not been done until I did it.
It conclusively proves that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish.
Once we understand that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish that can
be detected and rejected it can no longer be used as the basis of the
Tarski Undefinability theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
ALREADY DONE, so let us MOVE ON.
It is not done until you agree that the Tarski Undefinability Theorem is incorrect.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:29 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:43 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:13 am

LOL

you say and claim here that some so-called 'chatbot' could complete some model, and then 'effectively argue', for that model above here. But, let us NOT forget that even 'you', a human being', just SAID there there was not enough sufficient evidence to change the results.

So, 'you', "yourself', have, ALREADY, JUST DONE what you say is NOT impossible for a chatbot to be able to do.

Besides this OBVIOUS Fact NO computer could make ANY such CLAIM as there is NO evidence existing, for some 'thing', if 'you', human beings, have NOT YET DECIDED, we are STILL AT, WHEN you discover and/or work out what 'it' is EXACTLY what 'truth', itself, is solely depended upon, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here.
A Chatbot and a human with a sufficient model of the world will both
know that there is no evidence of election fraud that would change
the 2020 election. This same Chatbot or human would also know that
there is much evidence that claims of election fraud are deliberate lies.
Who REALLY cares about some Truly INSIGNIFICANT TINY election in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT country, in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT period?
These things could cause me to get murdered.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:48 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:46 am

ONLY and SOLELY BECAUSE that information PREXISTED BEFORE that PROGRAMMED 'chatgpt' went and did what 'it' was PROGRAMMED TO DO. Which is to just find ALREADY EXISTING information. 'chatgpt' is NOT programmed to just 'MAKE UP' whatever 'it' DECIDES nor WANTS 'to make up'.

None-the-less Chatbot does fabricate fake facts and the reason for this is
currently not sufficiently understood. Some corrective action has been taken.
The goalposts of deriving a good conclusion have been moved. Now the rewards
will be at each inference step.

My recommendation is to encode a True(L, X) predicate so that the
system has some way to distinguish verified facts from pure fiction.
As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED what you want here can NOT happen.

So, let us, AGAIN, move along here.
It seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:31 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:50 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:41 am

you appear to KEEP MISSING the Fact that a computer can ONLY 'decide' based upon the ACTUAL person, who 'programmed' ' the computer'. A computer does NOT make decisions itself. A computer just 'puts out' based solely upon what has been 'put in', again by 'you', human beings. So, what this means is if there is absolutely ANY bias within the human being, programming the computer, then 'this bias' could all to easily and simply be transferred into 'the computer' as well.

The 'biases', by the way, which ALL of 'you', adult human beings, HAVE can be very easily NOTICED and SEEN.
"you appear to KEEP MISSING the Fact that a computer can ONLY 'decide'
based upon the ACTUAL person, who 'programmed' ' the computer'."

With deep learning large language models this is no longer true. Within
these models the machines are mostly self-taught.
you KEEP MISSING the POINT.
You made the false statement that computers can only learn
what that have been taught and ever since Deep Learning
Large Language Models this is flat out false. In this case almost
everything that a computer system learns it does so on its
own without any human intervention.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:12 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:39 pm

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

Copyright 2021 PL Olcott

The above has not been done until I did it.
It conclusively proves that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish.
Once we understand that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish that can
be detected and rejected it can no longer be used as the basis of the
Tarski Undefinability theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
ALREADY DONE, so let us MOVE ON.
It is not done until you agree that the Tarski Undefinability Theorem is incorrect.
But I have NEVER even thought that it was correct, let alone ever said that it was.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:13 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:29 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:43 pm

A Chatbot and a human with a sufficient model of the world will both
know that there is no evidence of election fraud that would change
the 2020 election. This same Chatbot or human would also know that
there is much evidence that claims of election fraud are deliberate lies.
Who REALLY cares about some Truly INSIGNIFICANT TINY election in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT country, in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT period?
These things could cause me to get murdered.
Which, in the scheme of things, is even far less insignificant.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:14 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:48 pm


None-the-less Chatbot does fabricate fake facts and the reason for this is
currently not sufficiently understood. Some corrective action has been taken.
The goalposts of deriving a good conclusion have been moved. Now the rewards
will be at each inference step.

My recommendation is to encode a True(L, X) predicate so that the
system has some way to distinguish verified facts from pure fiction.
As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED what you want here can NOT happen.

So, let us, AGAIN, move along here.
It seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.
A computer could NOT 'decide' upon the 'things', which you talk about here.

As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED and SHOWN ABOVE here.

Now for those who do NOT BELIEVE that computers could 'decide', then I can and WILL provide FURTHER irrefutable proof, that is; if ANY more was needed.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:18 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:31 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:50 pm

"you appear to KEEP MISSING the Fact that a computer can ONLY 'decide'
based upon the ACTUAL person, who 'programmed' ' the computer'."

With deep learning large language models this is no longer true. Within
these models the machines are mostly self-taught.
you KEEP MISSING the POINT.
You made the false statement that computers can only learn
what that have been taught and ever since Deep Learning
Large Language Models this is flat out false.
WHERE have I EVER made such a claim as this?
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:18 pm In this case almost
everything that a computer system learns it does so on its
own without any human intervention.
you ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING the POINT here.

you ARE ALSO DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here TO REMEDY this.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:26 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:14 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 am

As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED what you want here can NOT happen.

So, let us, AGAIN, move along here.
It seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.
A computer could NOT 'decide' upon the 'things', which you talk about here.

As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED and SHOWN ABOVE here.

Now for those who do NOT BELIEVE that computers could 'decide', then I can and WILL provide FURTHER irrefutable proof, that is; if ANY more was needed.
In other words you are asserting that conditional branch instructions are a fiction just like
fairies and trolls. I disagree.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:01 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:26 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:14 pm

It seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.
A computer could NOT 'decide' upon the 'things', which you talk about here.

As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED and SHOWN ABOVE here.

Now for those who do NOT BELIEVE that computers could 'decide', then I can and WILL provide FURTHER irrefutable proof, that is; if ANY more was needed.
In other words you are asserting that conditional branch instructions are a fiction just like
fairies and trolls. I disagree.
your ASSUMPTIONS ARE leading you COMPLETELY ASTRAY here "pete olcott", which could help explaining WHY someone keeps repeating, ' you are an idiot “pete olcott" '.
Post Reply