The Wrong Conclusion

A common pattern I have come to recognize everywhere as an anti-pattern:

1. Person starts a dialogue establishing a problem, upon which we all agree
2. Person continues on down the same line of conversation, outlining a solution
3. Person comes to a conclusion which is a call to action

I see this a lot because step 1 seems to short-circuit the thinking behind the rest of the logic. You got a narrative going that you feel compelled to continue to listen to, and assume it’s only going to stay sane.

However, just because you have identified a problem does not mean your solution is correct. Stop yourself when a person opens a paragraph and remember that where they are going is not necessarily the only path, or even a sensible one.

The example I see most currently is about AI somehow matching human intelligence, usually in the context of LLMs.

1. LLMs exist, and seem to have novel properties that mimic humans producing language
2. Therefore, LLMs are the same as humans producing language
3. Therefore, LLMs have all the other capacities of humans and have been endowed with human nature and will replace us all

I’ve decorated these talking points with some straw men that are usually left implicit when usually presented, but you get the idea.

Just because you agree with the problem statement does not mean that the conclusion is correct just because it occurs a few sentences later.

Here’s an interesting blog post elsewhere on narratives and being misleading as well.