Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, a...

palata · 2024-03-26T16:31:58 1711470718

> Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble.

No no no no no! Try to read it slowly. You wrote:

"I'm working in the energy sector and I see that solar and wind are considered as a very valid solution."

And I answered, quoting exactly the line above:

"I would assume that people working in solar and wind believe in it... could it be a bubble?"

I was NOT saying that you worked in solar and wind, and I was NOT saying that it was a bubble. I was saying that it would seem reasonable to me that people working in renewables would indeed see it as a very valid solution. And given that you work in the energy sector, I was merely asking whether it could be the case that the people around you consider solar and wind as a very valid solution just because they believe in it (e.g. because they work with solar and wind).

Again I did not say "it has to be a bubble", I asked: "given your sector, could it be a bubble?". Then YOU proceeded in looking into other discussions and assuming things about me. Instead, you could just have said "well we don't work in solar and wind and don't benefit from it at all, so I don't see reasons for them to be biased" or "obviously I may be biased because we sell solar panels, but those are researchers and they really seem knowledgeable about it".

Or anything you wanted. Basically you said "I work in the energy sector" as if it mattered (and it could, I don't know), and this was my way of asking you to elaborate. Instead you proceeded in attacking me. So here is my answer: from where I stand, you are not able to draw correct logical conclusions from what you read. Seriously, how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)? That's insane.

cauch · 2024-03-26T20:12:05 1711483925

So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind".

How can I be outside of the bubble if the people around me are all in the bubble.

If I'm outside of the bubble, I will see people who work in solar and wind AND people who work in nuclear. And according to you, people in nuclear will not act like people in solar and wind, so the overall observation would not be that I see that solar and wind is considered as a very valid solution, because I will see people saying it's not a valid solution.

You even say:

> given your sector, could it be a bubble?

And you also say, I quote again

> Of course people in renewables tend to say that nuclear doesn't work, and people in nuclear tend to say that renewables don't work.

So, how does it work? How is that possible that, according to you now, you are not assuming that I'm working in solar and wind and not in nuclear, and at the same time, assuming that I cannot work in nuclear because, then, I will see people saying that solar and wind is not a very valid solution?

As for what I've said next, it's the pot calling the kettle black: even right now, you need a tortuous gymnastic to twist your words so we may slightly imagine a version in which you did not assume anything about me. As for what I've imagined, the rest of the discussion just make me think I was 100% right.

> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble" (and I'm just mentioning one here)?

Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that.

1) you say people working in wind and solar may be biased and think of it as a very valid solution

2) you say people working in nuclear may be biased and think of it as very not a valid solution

3) THE ONLY LOGIC POSSIBILITY FOR ME TO SAY I ONLY SEE IT BEING CONSIDERED AS A VERY VALID SOLUTION IS THAT I ONLY SEE PEOPLE WORKING IN WIND AND SOLAR.

There is absolutely no other logical solution.

(oh, and you would notice that I did not say "I see some people considering it as a very valid solution", which means I would also see others not considering it as a very valid solution. I'm saying it's a broad consensus to the point that this solution is very generally taken seriously. If you think I was saying "I see _some_ people", who is unable to read what the other has written?)

palata · 2024-03-26T20:43:42 1711485822

Oh come on, it has to be a joke. You just don't understand anything, do you? I would ask if you are an LLM, but my experience with LLMs is that they understand natural languages better.

> So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because

Last time: I asked if what you described (i.e. a large consensus for an idea) could be a bubble. I A-S-K-E-D. That's what the question mark means (this is a question mark: "?").

>> how can you jump from "could it be a bubble?" to "you jumped to the conclusion that I am in a bubble"

> Anybody with basic training in basic logic can do that.

You and I seem to have a very different view of what the word "logic" means.

cauch · 2024-03-26T21:11:45 1711487505

My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider that and to even ask.

You lecture me (badly) on "what I should have written". Well, there are tons of things that you could have written. I've even said it before, I quote:

> Being careful is fine, you could have asked precision about my domain.

But you did not, you just "asked innocently" a question that only someone with an idea already in mind would ask.

> I A-S-K-E-D

What if I tell you "how old are you?" (and I will: "you're so stupid you could be a LLM" ... seriously? how old are you?).

Does it mean that I did not assume anything about you? After all, I've just asked a question, it's the proof I'm not biased towards a specific hypothesis, no? Surely, by your own logic, asking "how old are you" is not implying that I consider you not very sophisticated, you should understand "maybe they think I'm young, but maybe they think I'm old and wise, they don't assume anything, as proven by the fact that they are asking a question".

You could have said "people in nuclear will down-play the importance on renewables, you are saying that around you, renewables are considered as a very valid solution, but are you sure renewables are not in fact a very very valid solution, because maybe you are in a bubble dominated by people working in nuclear". Why not having asked that?

You can even take more extreme examples where a person asked a foreigner person if their parents are apes, or bankers/moneylenders, or jihadists? If this person is asking an arab-looking person, why this person is, what a chance, asking if their parents are jihadists but not if their parents are bankers or part of the mafia? Do you really think the person is not assuming anything? After all, this person asked the question, so it's the proof they don't assume, right?

You see, language is a tad more complex than just LLM and out-of-context word-by-word interpretation, and apparently, I understand that. I don't know (and don't care) about LLM, but, you, you certainly don't.

palata · 2024-03-26T21:44:36 1711489476

Natural languages are ambiguous indeed. But it does not mean that you can pick any interpretation you like and "demonstrate" anything you want from it.

I won't address the rest, it makes no sense to me.

cauch · 2024-03-26T22:31:06 1711492266

And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it.

You cannot say "how old are you" and then scream and cry that someone has interpreted that as a normal person will do.

And I have provided all the elements that justify (even if there is a question mark, I know, amazing!) why I've interpreted the way I've interpreted. And these elements makes sense (and I know you will say "naa-ha they don't", the same way you have used logic similar to "if you don't agree with Jancovici, the only possibility is that you are an idiot").

You were lecturing me on what I should have written. But somehow, if indeed you did assume absolutely nothing, you expressed yourself incredibly badly, in a very unnatural way for someone who don't assume anything. But again, I guess you are allowed to lecture me and you are the good guy for doing so, but I should give you all the benefice of the doubt and forgive all of your bad writing, otherwise, I'm the bad guy.

And I know, you are going to say "naa-ah, it was not badly written". But it cuts both way, if I cannot say what interpretations are valid and are not valid, why do you think you can?

And all of this discussion does not change the fact that you are ignorant on the subject of energy generation, only come up with naive and cliché arguments, and that you focused the discussion on small elements rather than answer for all of the other aspects where indeed you cannot really answer.