Inspired by a thread in great debates, if you have to have part of a question explained to you, you probably should just let somebody else answer it, and sit back and learn from it if you wish. In the instance from the triggering thread, someone asks if AGI is on the way soon or is being overhyped, and someone posting complaining that AGI wasn’t explained to them. But it could be any question. If someone starts a thread asking for advice on how to rebuild a carburator on a 57 Chevy and you have to ask “what’s a carburator?” then you probably don’t have any useful answer to that question. Neither does the questioner have to explain to you what a carburator is, because if you don’t know, you don’t have their answer. Realize that not every question and not every post is meant for you.
(I considered this post for ATMB, but decided it was probably “hot” enough to beling in the pit.)
There is also another factor to consider. We live in a miraculous age with wonderful tools like this one:
“But wait!” You might say. "The very top result at your link is “Adjusted Gross Income which is clearly wrong!”. And you would be correct! But let me introduce you to another wonderful tool, one that’s much older than Google:
The correct answer is on the first page. Scroll, and use your .
I agree unless it is a super-obvious one like “FBI” and the context also clearly leads anyone reading to know it is the federal law enforcement agency.
I was taught to do this when I was an undergraduate. Maybe I learned it before that, but it’s been a long time. This is a board devoted to fighting ignorance and a place where we talk about a wide variety of topics. I think it would be good practice for most any OP to spell something out in full and then switch to the acronym. Even if I’m not replying to the thread, sometimes I’m just curious and this is a great way to fight ignorance.
But I really want to understand the question just enough that I can go search the web, read some Wikipedia, Mayo clinic, a Chevy forum, and come back with an intelligent sounding answer. I don’t think that makes me an AGI, though, just an LLM.
Imagine that you are trapped in a room, with printed out copies of every page of Chinese language Wikipedia. Each is labeled with the URL. Every so often, a computer terminal beeps, and you are presented with a factual question on a Chinese message board. You find an article where many of the symbols match, type in the corresponding URL, and post your reply to the message board.
Can you be said to understand Chinese? Can the system that you are a part of (the Chinese Room) be said to understand Chinese? Do you contribute anything to the message board?
I think, even if they have no chance of answering your question, the question should be phrased in a way that the reader actually understands what the question being asked is. This includes spelling out unfamilar acronyms and providing a background buffer of context.
For example, 2 posters in FQ who really wind me up are cannonkuo and Octagon because they have a question but never provide any context so if you don’t immediately recognise the terms you have absolutely no ide what they’re talking about.
A Great Debates thread is not only about facts, but about opinions, and persuasion. A reader may have opinions, and be willing and able to persuade, and even know some facts about the question except that it is presented in unclear or unfamiliar terms. Asking for clarification should not be slammed. If you don’t like the clarifying question, you are completely able to ignore it and move on to the next post. I fail to see that it hurts the discussion or you in particular for someone to ask for clarification. You don’t exactly own the high ground in this sort of thing anyway.
Your other example about a carburetor is a completely different kind of question, and would not be in Great Debates.
If you know so little about an industry that a standard term from it is unfamiliar to you, you are unlikely to have any valuable insight on the state of that industry.
This is generally true, but there are circumstances when someone is using unfamiliar terminology about something you understand using different terms or jargon. An old coot in a bar once asked me if I knew how to do a particular magic trick - and I truthfully said I didn’t; boy was he annoyed when 10-year-old me turned out to be able to do it without any trouble, having learned it under a different name. Carburetor may be a standard term in for a lot of people - but there may be some folks who just say fuel-air mixer
When I read the OP, I assumed that the targeted poster had claimed ignorance about the topic but then gone on to spout uniformed bullshit despite not even knowing the basics of the subject.
But no, all he did was to ask what a term meant so he could better follow the discussion. No all of us here read because they think they have all the answers, some read them because they don’t know the answer and are trying to learn. In the time it took the OP to write his snarky reply he could have answered the question and gotten that warm fuzzy feeling that comes with helping out a fellow doper.
It wasn’t meant as a snarky reply and I was actually suprised to get a (mild) modnote. In fact, I considered the post I was responding to to be mild threadshitting.
.