Tfw I take AI too seriously and explain it too clearly so nobody even gets madhttps://twitter.com/vgr/status/1014307742624780288 …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Only a sensationalist critique can penetrate a sensationalist discourse. Friend of mine has a similar problem: he writes coherently, non-sensationally and with carefully evidence about animal rights and veganism, and is surprised when he gets less traction than he expects
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @vgr
I wrote it for actual AI people, rather than singularitarians. Maybe it’s obvious to them? OTOH you’d think they’d do more science if so.
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Don't know about obvious (it's the sort of argument you evaluate on solidity rather than obviousness). Coming from the adjacent field of control theory which does in fact obsess over the science/math bits of the domain (convergence/stability, new interestingness) it seemed solid
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
I think if you want to truly undermine current AI discourse, you have no real option other than to aim a broadside at Bostrom
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
This is probably exactly what won't work. Bostrom is straddling the line between philosophy and philosophical science fiction. I think that many serious researchers find him brilliant and inspiring, but about as much worth attacking or defending as Asimov...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Meaningness
That’s precisely why he’s worth attacking
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
But nobody outside of the Bay area nerd community takes him very seriously? I don't think that the rationalist blogosphere is very relevant for practical AI research?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Meaningness
Leveraged impact on broad discourse. And remember for this topic, being taken seriously in the Bay Area is enough. Good chunk of the world’s AI funding probably ends up there. Kinda like for movies being taken seriously in LA is enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Then the text might not be optimal. Chapman's criticism of most of AI is lucid and insightful, but not new. His specific contributions are informed by his failed embodimentalism, and a bug at the core of his philosophy, which is more interesting, but not to AI or rationalism.
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.