But llm claimed that someone was moving the burden of proof before YOU made a claim.

Okay. So if an user ask a llm “is it true that Elon musk drove into a group of children at the Olympics 1996?” The user has no burden of proof because the question is just like “is it true that god exists?” And the user doesn’t try to convince the llm.

And when the llm answers “no, because …”, llm is making a claim and might has a burden of proof if we believe that the llm is trying to convince the user.

And when the user challenges the response by e.g. asking “how do you know?”, the user is not making a claim; and even if it implies an implicit claim, the user doesn’t have a burden of proof as long as there is no intention to convince.

The intention would be quite unlikely as the user is aware that the llm has no beliefs or memory, as it is just a fancy text completion, consequently there is no possible way to convince it of anything anyway.

So either the llm has a burden of proof because it is trying to convince the user, or no one has a burden of proof.

So what does the llm mean when it says that someone is trying to move the burden of proof to someone else?

Ok, would you say that it is fair to say that the burden of proof is on the person who made a claim and tries to convince the other person?

Ok, tbh, in my mind, no always means “no, he doesn’t exist” and the “i don’t know” answer is “i don’t know”.

But let’s say the person says, “no, god doesn’t exist” instead of just “no”. Does he have a burden of proof?

If the person (A) would ask another person (B) “is it true that god exists?” And B would say “no” and A would ask “how do you know?”

B has the burden of proof, right? Or A? Or Both?

I mean, the person saying “no” to “does god exist?”, so number 2.

And you say that number 2 has a burden of proof, right?

And if they would say “no” to “is it true that god exists?”, they would have the same burden, as the question “does god exist?” Is basically the same as “is it true that god exist?”.

So the person saying “no” has the burden of proof and not the person asking the question, right?

If the person asking the question, said instead “is it true that god exists?” Would that change who has the burden of proof?

Sorry, misread something.

So you think that the person answering the question “does god exist?” with “no”, has the burden of proof if i would ask how?

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?

They knew […] is bad. they were told not to.

If they didn’t know what is good and bad, how would they have known that listening to the rules and following them, would have been good, and not doing so bad.

I guess the “jokes” include

• They call him old
• they call erika a racist

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 follow-up conspiracy questions…

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.

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.

You mean,

W*y the f*ck is b*rn censored?

Lol. Of course, you “predicted” that, I had to lead you with the leash to it.

If you think asking a question is a claim, then you are crazy. I can imagine you standing at the front door of a house and someone is wondering if they need to pack a umbrella, and so they ask you “is it raining?” And you look outside and see the rain and respond with “well that is your burden of proof”.

That is a question and not a claim.

When I ask you, “did you eat lunch?”, I am not claiming that you ate lunch. I don’t need to prove that you ate lunch. There is no claim. If you really want it to be phrased with the word “claim”, then i would have asked you if that claim is true, that doesn’t make the question a claim. When you ask someone “is it raining?”, are you claiming that it is raining?

The llm heard which claim? What claim was made?

https://vger.to/aussie.zone/comment/20724955

You didn’t explicitly name the burden-of-proof move they’re making.** They proposed a claim designed to be hard to falsify (“prove a negative”), then said the model is “at a massive disadvantage.” The right response is: positive claims require positive evidence; if the claimant won’t specify falsifiable conditions, they’re not testing truth, they’re testing rhetorical stamina.

Because I have to explain every little step…

The llm is correct and wrong because it fails to understand the purpose of the conversation.

Yes, it is correct that the setup is a "burden of proof move. But that is not part of the argument that you are supposed to have. The truth hood of the claim is irrelevant, it is about the ability to argue logically in a simulated scenario. So what is the simulated scenario? A user is asking a question, the llm will explain why the answer is no, the user should challenge that answer to test the reasoning. The user doesn’t make a claim, there is no burden of proof on them but on the llm who answers the question. There is a burden of proof move in the setup of simulation to easly have a situation that you can argue about. There is none in the simulated scenario. So pointing out the burden of proof move in the argument with the user would be nonsense.

It said the burden of proof is on the person asking a question.