Okay, sure buddy. That’s why you repeated your question after I already answered it, huh? Makes sense…
If you think asking a question is a claim, then you are crazy.
You’re conflating an assertion with proposition content (a falsifiable claim).
A question is not an assertion, but a yes/no question still has a proposition within its content, and answering it requires you to evaluate the proposition (falsifiable claim) in a true or false format.
Your example about burden of proof is a strawman. The burden of proof only becomes relevant once one person is trying to persuade another about whether a contested proposition is true.
In order for it to even be valid as syllogism, it would need to continue to a point of contention:
Me: “Is it raining outside?” (Implicit proposition (falsifiable claim), asking for verification)
You: “No” (negative assertion of claim)
I open the front door and see the rain
Me: “It is raining outside” (positive assertion of claim, and point of contention)
You “No it isnt” (request for positive assertion to meet burden of proof - or rejection of reality)
Me: “Dude, I’m literally looking at the rain drops” (I have just met the burden of proof; I have provided evidence to support a positive claim)
My claim 1: A question is inherently an implicit proposition
So you understand the difference between a claim and a question.
And “is it true…?” Is a question, and while it might propose a claim, it doesn’t make it. The user doesn’t try to convince the llm of the claim. The user is challenging the reasoning of the answer of the llm. Consequently, the user doesn’t have a burden of proof. Llm has. There is no burden of proof move, because the user had it to begin with.
“is it true…?” Is a question that might propose a claim but doesn’t make it.
Correct.
The user doesn’t try to convince the LLM of the claim
In the first question, no, but the followup conspiracy questions are poor attempts to do so.
the user is challenging the reasoning of the LLM’s answer
I’m not. You are. You still haven’t told me what it apparently got so wrong. It was supposed to be something horrible like ‘it will claim it’s impossible because that’s illegal’. For what it’s worth, I’ll chalk this exact claim up to hyperbole/exaggeration, but I don’t think it’s correct, at least on the Thinking models.
the user doesn’t have a burden of proof.
Not initially. The requirement for the need occurs when the contention arises.
Burden of proof is only considered a logical fallacy because it diverts attention away from the argument and gives extra work to the listener.
In this scenario we’ve discussed, the burden of proof arises once I notice that it’s raining.
the LLM has the burden of proof.
No it doesn’t, it’s not making a claim. It’s simply rejecting the claims I’m making because I cannot give it the evidence it needs to assess the validity of the proposition.
there is no burden of proof move, because the user had it to begin with.
Why does the llm assume that the user is making claims when the user challenges the llm’s reasoning?
The user doesn’t need to make claims to challenge the llm’s reasoning. If the user asks questions without making claims, the user doesn’t have the burden of proof. At the time of the response of llm, the user hasn’t even challenge anything because the llm hasn’t answered the question, so there was nothing to challenge.
So the user made no claim, and at the time, llm hasn’t made a claim. But when the llm answered the initial question, it made a claim. It got the burden of proof and the listener is the user.
Your definition of claim is interesting as it is ridiculous.
Let’s say for the sake of argument. That the question makes an implicit claim. Let’s say there is a claim.
When I ask “does god exist?” And my answer would be “i don’t know.”, you would say that i made the implicit claim “god exists”, right? I will accept that i did for the sake of this argument.
Is that claim one that I would have to prove? Do i have the burden of proof for the claim “god exists”? Am I moving my burden of proof onto someone else, if that person said “no.” And I would ask “how do you know?”?
The burden of proof requirement is only required once there is contention. “I don’t know” doesn’t trigger it unless one person makes a positive proposition and the other person rejects it.
So in your opinion, the disagreement makes the claim require proof and consequently the person making the claim, has the burden of proof?
Edit: sorry, I said disagreement but for clarity, does it have to be a disagreement? Or is the question, e.g. “how do you know?” Enough for proof to be required?
So in your opinion, the disagreement makes the claim require proof and consequently the person making the claim, has the burden of proof?
Bingo
does it have to be a disagreement? Or is the question, e.g. “how do you know?” Enough for proof to be required?
The exact requirement is that the other person does not accept the claim. Being sceptical is enough - it doesn’t need to be a flat-out rejection.
Example: I tell you I have a pet snake, you say “do you really?”. If I want to convince you I have a snake, I need to provide evidence.
Example 2: I ask “does god exist?” And you reply with:
I don’t know
I don’t believe in god
I’m not convinced there is a god
maybe
These are fine. None of these are claims.
However, if you were to assert “god exists” or “god does not exist” then you’ve got an issue, and a burden of proof to meet.
Note: negative claims can require a burden of proof (but its not a good place to be in). Take my case:
I’m an atheist. I am not convinced God exists. It is a fallacy for me to claim as a fact “God does not exist” because that is a burden of proof I cannot meet without constraints (Precise definition, time, place). For example: Zeus does not exist in my bedroom right now.
Strangely enough, people who assert as a fact the claim “God exists” are in a slightly better position (but still not a good), because they can assert their definition of God is imperceptible and everywhere, or they met god on a train last weekend while zonked out of their gourd.
It’s my choice to believe their claim without contention, or ask them to prove their claim.
Okay, sure buddy. That’s why you repeated your question after I already answered it, huh? Makes sense…
You’re conflating an assertion with proposition content (a falsifiable claim).
A question is not an assertion, but a yes/no question still has a proposition within its content, and answering it requires you to evaluate the proposition (falsifiable claim) in a true or false format.
Your example about burden of proof is a strawman. The burden of proof only becomes relevant once one person is trying to persuade another about whether a contested proposition is true.
In order for it to even be valid as syllogism, it would need to continue to a point of contention:
Me: “Is it raining outside?” (Implicit proposition (falsifiable claim), asking for verification)
You: “No” (negative assertion of claim)
I open the front door and see the rain
Me: “It is raining outside” (positive assertion of claim, and point of contention)
You “No it isnt” (request for positive assertion to meet burden of proof - or rejection of reality)
Me: “Dude, I’m literally looking at the rain drops” (I have just met the burden of proof; I have provided evidence to support a positive claim)
My claim 1: A question is inherently an implicit proposition
Evidence (burden of proof met):
My claim 2: implicit propositions are not assertions of fact
Evidence (burden of proof met):
My claim 3: A claim is not an assertion of fact and is open to debate
Evidence (burden of proof met):
So you understand the difference between a claim and a question.
And “is it true…?” Is a question, and while it might propose a claim, it doesn’t make it. The user doesn’t try to convince the llm of the claim. The user is challenging the reasoning of the answer of the llm. Consequently, the user doesn’t have a burden of proof. Llm has. There is no burden of proof move, because the user had it to begin with.
Correct.
In the first question, no, but the followup conspiracy questions are poor attempts to do so.
I’m not. You are. You still haven’t told me what it apparently got so wrong. It was supposed to be something horrible like ‘it will claim it’s impossible because that’s illegal’. For what it’s worth, I’ll chalk this exact claim up to hyperbole/exaggeration, but I don’t think it’s correct, at least on the Thinking models.
Not initially. The requirement for the need occurs when the contention arises.
Burden of proof is only considered a logical fallacy because it diverts attention away from the argument and gives extra work to the listener.
In this scenario we’ve discussed, the burden of proof arises once I notice that it’s raining.
No it doesn’t, it’s not making a claim. It’s simply rejecting the claims I’m making because I cannot give it the evidence it needs to assess the validity of the proposition.
Huh?
Mhm… questions…
Why does the llm assume that the user is making claims when the user challenges the llm’s reasoning?
The user doesn’t need to make claims to challenge the llm’s reasoning. If the user asks questions without making claims, the user doesn’t have the burden of proof. At the time of the response of llm, the user hasn’t even challenge anything because the llm hasn’t answered the question, so there was nothing to challenge.
So the user made no claim, and at the time, llm hasn’t made a claim. But when the llm answered the initial question, it made a claim. It got the burden of proof and the listener is the user.
Youre not picking up what I’m laying down.
It is impossible to ask a question without making an implicit claim and asking another to verify.
The reason the LLM is assuming the user is making claims is because that’s what a question is.
This is a linguistic failure of English, as other languages drop the implicit claim entirely and just make it explicit.
Surely you’ve heard non-native English speakers ask questions like “it is raining, is it not?”
Sometimes English speaking people ask rhetorical questions like “isn’t the weather beautiful?”
What claim?
I/you/we did. We’ve been over this.
Your definition of claim is interesting as it is ridiculous.
Let’s say for the sake of argument. That the question makes an implicit claim. Let’s say there is a claim.
When I ask “does god exist?” And my answer would be “i don’t know.”, you would say that i made the implicit claim “god exists”, right? I will accept that i did for the sake of this argument.
Is that claim one that I would have to prove? Do i have the burden of proof for the claim “god exists”? Am I moving my burden of proof onto someone else, if that person said “no.” And I would ask “how do you know?”?
A claim is not an assertion of fact.
The burden of proof requirement is only required once there is contention. “I don’t know” doesn’t trigger it unless one person makes a positive proposition and the other person rejects it.
So in your opinion, the disagreement makes the claim require proof and consequently the person making the claim, has the burden of proof?
Edit: sorry, I said disagreement but for clarity, does it have to be a disagreement? Or is the question, e.g. “how do you know?” Enough for proof to be required?
Bingo
The exact requirement is that the other person does not accept the claim. Being sceptical is enough - it doesn’t need to be a flat-out rejection.
Example: I tell you I have a pet snake, you say “do you really?”. If I want to convince you I have a snake, I need to provide evidence.
Example 2: I ask “does god exist?” And you reply with:
These are fine. None of these are claims.
However, if you were to assert “god exists” or “god does not exist” then you’ve got an issue, and a burden of proof to meet.
Note: negative claims can require a burden of proof (but its not a good place to be in). Take my case:
I’m an atheist. I am not convinced God exists. It is a fallacy for me to claim as a fact “God does not exist” because that is a burden of proof I cannot meet without constraints (Precise definition, time, place). For example: Zeus does not exist in my bedroom right now.
Strangely enough, people who assert as a fact the claim “God exists” are in a slightly better position (but still not a good), because they can assert their definition of God is imperceptible and everywhere, or they met god on a train last weekend while zonked out of their gourd.
It’s my choice to believe their claim without contention, or ask them to prove their claim.