[Maark Abbott]

QuickTidal, on 09 October 2025 - 11:17 AM, said:

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 09 October 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

Also humans are biologically primed to be receptive to authority figures (and ChatGPT et al come across very authoritative and totally fuck with our lizard brains. I mean, have you tried the ChatGPT conversational voice mode? It is astounding how seamless and humanlike it is.)

Right, but that's my disconnect here as they REFUSED to listen to scientists and doctors and epidemiologists during the pandemic...according to them they were ALL on the take. But now Chat GPT is their king? I don't get it.

I think this ties back to the 'we don't need experts' rhetoric. I'm not sure who espoused it over the pond (here it was largely Michael Gove, from memory), but the lasting effect has been mistrust in people with expertise. I suppose it stoked the egos of people who are proud to know very little to be told their opinions on certain subjects were exactly as valid as those who've studied those same subjects as their life's work.

Why they then trust ChatGPT though, I have no theory at present.

[QuickTidal]

Maark Abbott, on 09 October 2025 - 11:50 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 October 2025 - 11:17 AM, said:

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 09 October 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

Also humans are biologically primed to be receptive to authority figures (and ChatGPT et al come across very authoritative and totally fuck with our lizard brains. I mean, have you tried the ChatGPT conversational voice mode? It is astounding how seamless and humanlike it is.)

Right, but that's my disconnect here as they REFUSED to listen to scientists and doctors and epidemiologists during the pandemic...according to them they were ALL on the take. But now Chat GPT is their king? I don't get it.

I think this ties back to the 'we don't need experts' rhetoric. I'm not sure who espoused it over the pond (here it was largely Michael Gove, from memory), but the lasting effect has been mistrust in people with expertise. I suppose it stoked the egos of people who are proud to know very little to be told their opinions on certain subjects were exactly as valid as those who've studied those same subjects as their life's work.

Why they then trust ChatGPT though, I have no theory at present.

It does seem to stem from a sort of "I'm in an IN GROUP that KNOWS THE TRUTH" and how intoxicating it is to feel like that...and the longer you feel like that, the more your brain will begin to defend that position, and anything that even factually combats that feeling will be seen by your brain as an attack.

[Tsundoku]

I think people are more likely to listen to experts ... who agree with their preconceived notions.

I mean, it pretty much tallies with the whole "echo chamber" thing, doesn't it?

See, once upon a time western society just did what the govt and experts told them. Society was individualistic to a certain degree, but they still listened and acceded because it's how they were brought up. And you know - the common good etc. Belief in a benign - or at least not overtly malevolent - govt.

But then people started to get more individualistic - more important than the common good (60s hippies, USA in general looking at you here). And the "greed is good" era, Reaganomics, the breakdown of the very tenuous social contract in the 80s or so when people realised the govt and upper classes really didn't give a fuck about them, then throw the internet in, when people could find any number of other people who agreed with whatever they thought - no matter how whackadoodle - and here we are.

As far as trusting ChatGPT - well, it's supposed to trawl all of human knowledge isn't it? And be neutral. Ish.
So in theory I should get a more accurate and impartial answer from ChatGPT than some party shill, or biased scientist ...
Anyhoo, that's some of what's going through my head as to why.

The above of course is very, very brief and generalised, but it's a nice summary of my opinion.

@QT
Yes, that idea of "groupthink" and contrary opinion or evidence being seen as an "attack" - I've seen that somewhere, maybe in a doco or written online, but it rings a bell.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 09 October 2025 - 12:33 PM

[Maark Abbott]

QuickTidal, on 09 October 2025 - 12:27 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 09 October 2025 - 11:50 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 October 2025 - 11:17 AM, said:

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 09 October 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

Also humans are biologically primed to be receptive to authority figures (and ChatGPT et al come across very authoritative and totally fuck with our lizard brains. I mean, have you tried the ChatGPT conversational voice mode? It is astounding how seamless and humanlike it is.)

Right, but that's my disconnect here as they REFUSED to listen to scientists and doctors and epidemiologists during the pandemic...according to them they were ALL on the take. But now Chat GPT is their king? I don't get it.

I think this ties back to the 'we don't need experts' rhetoric. I'm not sure who espoused it over the pond (here it was largely Michael Gove, from memory), but the lasting effect has been mistrust in people with expertise. I suppose it stoked the egos of people who are proud to know very little to be told their opinions on certain subjects were exactly as valid as those who've studied those same subjects as their life's work.

Why they then trust ChatGPT though, I have no theory at present.

It does seem to stem from a sort of "I'm in an IN GROUP that KNOWS THE TRUTH" and how intoxicating it is to feel like that...and the longer you feel like that, the more your brain will begin to defend that position, and anything that even factually combats that feeling will be seen by your brain as an attack.

One time I saw my doctor about something. And they asked me what I reckoned to a potential treatment option. She was very surprised when I said "you're the doctor, we'll try your idea first" because she'd gotten that used to people just not paying attention to her expertise any more. Feels like a microcosm of how stuff is lately.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Maark Abbott, on 09 October 2025 - 04:28 PM, said:

One time I saw my doctor about something. And they asked me what I reckoned to a potential treatment option. She was very surprised when I said "you're the doctor, we'll try your idea first" because she'd gotten that used to people just not paying attention to her expertise any more. Feels like a microcosm of how stuff is lately.

This is something I've noticed as well - the expectation they won't be trusted/argued with.

I can only back Maark's points, because my dad is an exhaustingly textbook example of this. Doesn't want to hear about an "expert" unless they agree with whatever previously established prejudice he's holding - but anyone who agrees with him, ah well, we don't need to question their expertise at all.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 10 October 2025 - 07:17 AM

[Maark Abbott]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 10 October 2025 - 07:17 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 09 October 2025 - 04:28 PM, said:

One time I saw my doctor about something. And they asked me what I reckoned to a potential treatment option. She was very surprised when I said "you're the doctor, we'll try your idea first" because she'd gotten that used to people just not paying attention to her expertise any more. Feels like a microcosm of how stuff is lately.

This is something I've noticed as well - the expectation they won't be trusted/argued with.

I can only back Maark's points, because my dad is an exhaustingly textbook example of this. Doesn't want to hear about an "expert" unless they agree with whatever previously established prejudice he's holding - but anyone who agrees with him, ah well, we don't need to question their expertise at all.

I see it in my day to day as well (and I expect you will have at some point given we're broadly the same sector) - trying to explain to a claimant why something has to be done a certain way, and you sometimes get a pushback because they went on google and the actuality doesn't match expectation, or try and detail to them why evidence says something and you get argued with that 'I know x y or z, the reporting expert doesn't know me, they don't know what they're talking about' and it's just exhausting. It's just knackering to deal with on a constant basis.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Azath Vitr (D, on 08 October 2025 - 06:07 PM, said:

In my anecdotal experience ChatGPT doesn't frequently hallucinate facts, though it is still extremely stupid and very lazy. (For example, I recently considered investing in a US farmland REIT, so I wanted to know how much of an impact Trump's trade war might have on it, particularly his trade war with China. The numbers seemed correct, but when ChatGPT tried to do an actual calculation of the impact on AFFO, it stupidly treated AFFO from exports to China---which made up a minority of total exports for this REIT---as if it were AFFO for all of the REIT's exports. However, it was able to correct the error and redo the calculation after I pointed this out. So when it comes to original analysis, I wouldn't recommend using it unless you already have a decent enough grasp of the subject matter to recognize errors and double-check its work before acting on its suggestions.)

I was actually hoping Trump's trade war had simmered down for the foreseeable future but lo and behold after some seemingly minor provocations from China Trump's going full bonkers into it again today...

Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq slide as Trump threatens 'massive increase' on China tariffs - Yahoo Finance

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 10 October 2025 - 03:34 PM