Second: "construct validity is indeed an important concern in some areas" is either further and more a sly bit of snark (i.e., it's important but no one has yet to establish it) or exceedingly generous. Given my jaded nature, I choose to interpret it as the former.
@UlrikeHahn @cogsci @philosophy
Posts
-
new blog post on whether LLMs really reason, think, summarise etc. -
new blog post on whether LLMs really reason, think, summarise etc.Ok, I semi-lied. I don't have anything useful to say, but I do have something to say. First: "you might think that psychologists sort out ‘construct validity’ before they conduct actual experiments" is hilarious in it's snark (or perceived snark). I fully approve of such snark.
@UlrikeHahn @cogsci @philosophy -
new blog post on whether LLMs really reason, think, summarise etc.I don't have anything useful to say, but I appreciate the measured, thoughtful approach you take in this post. In a world where everyone seems to have taken (extreme) sides, it's refreshing to see.
@UlrikeHahn @cogsci @philosophy