Any readings on the 1980's culture in AI research?
-
-
Replying to @11kilobytes
Hmm… nothing come immediately to mind, I’m afraid
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @11kilobytes
I’m sure lots was written at the time though
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
That's a good suggestion. What are the "cognitive distortions?" Is it something like wrong modes-of-being that are promoted by Rationalist eternalism? Or perhaps cogntivism + representationalism?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @11kilobytes
Yes, exactly those! Plus maybe a kind of naive idealism and cluelessness about the world in general.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @11kilobytes
Malcolm ☣️cean - check sense of smell 👃 — 🌎 🇨🇦 Retweeted Malcolm ☣️cean - check sense of smell 👃 — 🌎 🇨🇦
I'm guessing a lot of this has to do with reification of the left hemisphere's world, which is baked into most paradigms but particularly loud & explicit in AI-land. Thread, which I think you'd find worth reading and I'd be interested in your thoughts on:https://twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1187752394702151681 …
Malcolm ☣️cean - check sense of smell 👃 — 🌎 🇨🇦 added,
Malcolm ☣️cean - check sense of smell 👃 — 🌎 🇨🇦 @Malcolm_OceanReading this post by@JanelleCShane and I'm like "oh man, our current ai bots are basically left hemispheres". > "When confused, it tends not to admit it" https://aiweirdness.com/post/175110257767/the-visual-chatbot … pic.twitter.com/wKowi16RtyShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
relatedly, the traditional "laws of thought" are "laws of LHemisphere" law of identity law of non-contradiction law of excluded middle they only make sense in contextless spaces of zero nebulosity AI folks may not think literally these, but... similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Malcolm_Ocean @11kilobytes
I’m interested in McGilcrist because so many people are fans. However, everything I’ve read about the book suggests it’s a pretty standard dual-process theory. That does give some insight but is limited and well-trod. Maybe I’m missing what’s distinctive? https://meaningness.com/eggplant/cognitive-science#dual-process …pic.twitter.com/yENH8BBxm6
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
David, if a person admits they don’t know why they acted a particular way, yet someone else claims to have a reason that explains the behavior, can either of them claim rationality? How would you characterize the two perspectives?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Um… I use “rationality” in a specific way. I don’t think this question fits there
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But maybe I just didn’t understand the question?
-
-
Psychologists claim some behaviors are caused by things like defense mechanisms, which in some weird way tries to make a rational case for what otherwise might be called irrational behavior. So rationality appears very subjective.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.