It was a 2011 study that found a 0.28 correlation in amygdalae size vs conservative political identity among a tiny group of college students. A replication attempt dropped that correlation to 0.068 which is basically nothing, and completely failed to replicate at all the other, even weaker, findings of the previous study. And the media called the amygdala the "fear center", which is dumb. It plays a key role in memory - especially long term memory, emotional processing, the understanding of social cues, and more. Removing it would render someone extremely mentally retarded.
---
I'd also add on this issue that considering political issues among college students is itself silly. Our political positions on things is impacted by our life experience, and at the point of college one has very little life experience to formulate views off of. Political identity will often shift radically from age 20 to 40, which against suggests a genetic basis as being farcical - at least beyond the point that your brain structure will typically correlate, to some degree, with the development of skills, identity, etc.
In this case I asked ChatGPT without the part specifying mode 7 and it replied with a working program using mode 7, with a comment at the top that mode 7 would be the best choice.
Yeah..except that The Brave Little Toaster has a specific anti consumerism slant..
I can't imagine why the toy based story that was designed from the get-go to shovel plastic into kids via emotional hooks took off better and was better supported by the industry...
Anthropic had a slip-up like this recently with a legal filing (totally unrelated to the report, just a similar example of bad citations). After being challenged by a judge, they said:
> A Latham & Watkins associate located that article as potential additional support for Ms. Chen’s testimony using a Google search. The article exists [...]
> [...] I asked Claude.ai to provide a properly formatted legal
citation for that source using the link to the correct article. Unfortunately, although providing the correct publication title, publication year, and link to the provided source, the returned citation included an inaccurate title and incorrect authors.
Anthropic could be lying, but apparently the link is indeed correct, so the account seems plausible.
However, the current situation is less understandable. The article says that "some correctly cited papers were inaccurately summarized", which suggests that AI either was used for the report itself, or at least was told to add citations without the author's input, which would be far more irresponsible than what Anthropic did. The apparently completely hallucinated "paper on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs" also doesn't look good.
The article also mentions that "[a]n early copy of the report shared with reporters did not include citations", which does support the theory that citations were added after the fact (whether or not AI was also used for the report itself).
I'm not saying they didn't. It's just that the title here says "WH releases health report written by LLM" but the article it links to does not claim that. The headline from the article is about the fake citations.
Also, I could imagine that the report, whether drafted by human or not, could have been pasted into an LLM with a prompt like "make this sound more authoritative" and the LLM dutifully added some "citations" because, what's more authoritative looking than citations?
Let’s assume good faith all round. One poster rightly highlights the overwhelmingly positive track record. Another points out the negatives went a little beyond an “oopsie”.
Yeah just being respectful to those 14 astronauts who died. They are worth mentioning. Nasa had major setbacks - not an "oopsie". Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Well done Voyager team.
I think this is an unfair characterization of the comment. Nobody is dismissing the shuttle crews. The “oopsie” was in reference to the Mars Climate Orbiter mishap that did not involve loss of human life.
> Reddit style drive by snark doesn’t work as well here imho.
Isn't this the only snark and drive-by comment around? I think it's more interesting, just as I think a pit stop change is more interesting in F1 than most of the race itself.
reply