Ask HN: Given a sufficiently complex argument, people deduce anything they like

4 pointsposted 2 days ago
by ricardo81

Item id: 43896534

7 Comments

90s_dev

2 days ago

> Is there a principle for such a thing?

Confirmation bias.

ricardo81

2 days ago

ah, yes.

What about the sufficiently complex angle?

Jtsummers

2 days ago

Cherry picking. They can find and select the evidence that bolsters their position while ignoring or disregarding evidence contrary to their position. This can be easier when it's a more complex topic with more evidence for both sides of a debate.

didgetmaster

2 days ago

This tactic is especially effective when considering a hotly contested political topic where nearly half the country is in favor of one side, while the other half takes the opposite stance.

Two reasonable people can look at all the evidence available and come to completely opposite conclusions. If you have a clear bias for one side or the other before weighing the evidence; then you might come away with the conclusion that people who believe the opposite must be crazy.

beardyw

2 days ago

It seems to apply to AI as well, so don't be too judgemental.

gogurt2000

2 days ago

To me that sounds like sophistry (unintentional or not). Wikipedia summarizes it nicely:

"Sophistry" is today used as a pejorative for a superficially sound but intellectually dishonest argument in support of a foregone conclusion.

Loosely related: The 60's scifi novel "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" explored the idea of computers with powerful enough AI that they could construct a logically persuasive argument for any stance by cherry picking and manipulating the facts. In the book I think they called those computers Sophists, which seems particularly relevant today. You can absolutely ask an LLM to construct an argument to support any stance and, just like in the book, they can be used to produce misinformation and propaganda on a scale that makes it difficult for humans to discern the truth.

bjourne

2 days ago

Can you give an example?