0
$\begingroup$

A question I asked recently has been closed with a warning stating it is an opinion based question. In my mind, I have already dealt with the problem by a qualifier I added to the bottom of the question stating that only technical analysis and authoritative references count as answers, no philosophical type answers. So, it is unclear to me what else I need to do to make the question not opinion based and get it reopened. I don't know who closed the question, and so I don't have any way to ask for clarification. What should I do in this sort of situation?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Closing questions is generally a "community" decision (voted on by members of the community), and the same is generally the case for reopening closed questions. This answer on meta.stackexchange explains the process, including actions you can take to (help) initiate a re-open vote.

One of those actions is editing the body of the question. I see you edited the body of your question once, but that was before it got closed. You also edited the title after it got closed, but that's just the title, not the body. Editing the body of the question would automatically enter your question into the queue where users with sufficiently high reputation can vote on whether or not to re-open. Of course, we do not want you to just do a tiny meaningless edit just for the sake of this: it should be an edit that actually addresses the reasons for closing.

As for your question in particular, I do believe that the edit you've made to the title does already help to turn your question into one that is more objectively answerable. After this edit, the focus of your question if I'm going by the title seems to be: How could we (objectively) test this hypothesis?

However, my impression is that there is a bit of a disconnect between the title and the body of the question still. The body of the question gives more of an impression of "I'm already convinced of this, can you change my mind?" In the body of your question, your point about capabilities that ChatGPT has, for which you are not sure how a neural network could pull that off, is objectively answerable. That's fine, although already discussed in existing questions, and already adequately answered and explained there, so there is some risk of the new question remaining closed as a duplicate of those.

Asking about how likely it is for OpenAI not to follow some of its own recommended best practices, or how likely it is for them to lie or intentionally misrepresent or deceive through omission, is probably opinion-based and also not really on-topic for an AI website.

There probably should not be a discussion or debate about who should have the burden of proof at all. If the question were objectively-answerable, and purely about "how could this phenomenon be explained under either hypothesis", the debate of burden of proof would be nonsensical.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .