One is reminded of the difference between proof-relevant and classical mathematics. The letter of the law is a mere proposition, whereas the spirit of the law is a program of a certain type, whose “computational content” describes the actions one takes to produce the state of compliance.
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
581–590 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#582My own conclusion is that the rule is not clear enough. Define "vehicle" and "in the park". Sure it's probably hard to think of all the use cases when you first write the rule. Simply iterate and add exceptions and clearer definitions as needed (seems like it's exactly how laws are made, and nobody is saying "we should not have any laws because it's hard to think of all the use cases")
Now, when you enter the park, you must read a novel-sized rulebook first.
Well that's case even when you are not entering the park, because of all those laws you must follow at all times
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're the park ranger and the local police come into the park in their car chasing after some criminals... If the exact same thing happens but you're having a dispute with the local police It doesn't matter, the rules on police and emergency vehicles usually supersede some local rule about a park. The park is not some absolute ruler of the land, sure it can put rules for general/everyday use but a lot of things…
The game didn't say the park is contained in another land. It's a "hypothetical park". It could even exist in a virtual reality that doesn't have any other rules for all we know.
Yeah, the game is very specific about other rules not applying. It's about "what exactly is and is not in" (in the airliner and space station question) and about "what exactly is and is not vehicle" (all others)
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#584I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
I think the purpose was to focus on the rule not on the intent of the rule.
Following rules without thinking of their intent is just malicious compliance.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…
If a vehicle entering the park would directly endanger lives--rather than just being a nuisance--the sign would (should) give the extra context to make a stronger discouragement. Otherwise, it is fair game to assume the "intent" of any such sign is to make guidelines to enhance the public's mutual enjoyment/safety at the park, and that such guidelines may be discarded when lives are endangered (police/ambulance). As…
I voted that a police car/ambulance driving into the park _was_ breaking the rules, though breaking the rules may be justifiable in some circumstances.
The smoke signal example you gave is similar - if I’m lost, I care more about being found than the punishment for starting a fire.
If the ‘no campfires’ rule was punishable by death (and enforced), perhaps I wouldn’t risk a smoke signal
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…
> Now you're assuming the intent. No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication. > The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff. Then the sign would mention that, simple as that. > But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them. I agree with you here, it…
> If the test asked "should violator be punished?" I think it would be more meaningful, otherwise it's just synthetic and the controversy is just about semantics
This is how I interpreted the test, but you're making a good point.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#587The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me,…
11% as well (all questions answered).
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#588I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
Exactly. There is a clear majority in the answers. Sure, there are edge cases, but they are edge cases. But I also want to say this is a really cool website. I love how he used this experience to set the table for what is otherwise essentially a blog post. Very cool. But to hone in a bit more: > It was about content moderation. Specifically, some people think that there could be simple rules for Internet content that…
Given that this is about moderation, I've ran a short experiment asking the first 7 questions to GPT 4 to test a theory: https://chat.openai.com/share/87c7df76-c693-4446-b8ce-817ac5...
It fully agrees with the majority interpretation in all cases despite the rule being minimal and requires taking the inferred intent into account. LLMs for machine moderation are probably rolling out very soon, I doubt Reddit and the like will even allow for human moderation in a few years (if prompt injection can be solved robustly enough).
The problem with having humans as rule breaking judges is that we all have our ever changing biases and motives. Most everyone has an experience with a power tripping mod deleting their post or comment because they had a bad day and needed to take out their anger on something. An LLM can parse these variable situations with ease and can also be tested for those biases. Since it'll never deviate from its training data it always acts as impartial as possible within the rules' limits.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#589Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now you're assuming the intent. No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication. > The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff. Then the sign would mention that, simple as that. > But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them. I agree with you here, it…
> No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication. It's assuming the intent without sufficient context to know what it actually is. Because very little context was provided. And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important . > Then the sign would mention that, simple as that. We don't even know if there was a sign. None of that was specified.
> And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important.
You're assuming that.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#590I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
you give emergency vehicles an exception to the rule, that was specifically mentions as not being the intent. the rule is no vehicles in the park, an ambulance is a vehicle so it broke the rule. if then punishment is applied and what is something else, in the basis it's a vehicle in the park.