When I checked Wikipedia, the result was even starker: the whole database of the English version contains no occurrence of “semantic inflation” anywhere.
-
-
If you haven't already spotted it, I'm just remixing (i.e. copying and pasting) sections from
@floridi's article and substituting my phrase "semantic inflation" for his phrase "semantic capital". Anyone can coin a phrase and then hold their hands up and say: ...2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
(in professorial tones)..."So, you may understand my surprise when I began researching the concept of semantic capital and realised that nobody had theorised it, or even formulated it as a term." The swagger here is breathtaking.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Floridi's work has a swagger:substance ratio of at least 100:1.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm glad I'm not the only one to be taken in. But it is nevertheless astonishing, and very disappointing, so that so many apparently are.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
No one who actually understands and works with information theory takes Floridi's project seriously. He seems profound to people who don't know any better, which in tech is everyone.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
My first clue that Floridi's work is not what it seems was his extremely bad article in Aeon in 2016, where he claims without argument that the Curry-Howard correspondence proves that machines will never be conscious. https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible …pic.twitter.com/s0qO0LZJPH
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's a bad faith argument that rests entirely on his readers not understanding what the logic implies. It simply reinforces the reader's prejudices with fancy terms that give a false impression of the field. I was shocked to see such a disingenuous argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The dude has a TON of political power. Tech companies gush over him. He's brought a lot of cash to Oxford. Some of his work in ethics is genuinely good and useful. But his "information theory" is utter garbage, and should be ignored forever.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, he is extremely good at what he does. Most contemporary philosophy seems to be impersonation anyway. (I am less familiar with his works on ethics, could you point me to a resource? There is too little good work on AI ethics imho.)
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.