The main thing Ted Chiang's article got right is that you can think of the market as an AI if you also think of AI as something unintelligent.
you can't say "oh well, if that process were INTELLIGENT it wouldn't have done that dumb thing" because the bounds on rationality are structural, and apply to any rational agent (and any process which mimics the strategy of a rational agent, as well)
-
-
I’m not saying intelligences can’t be dumb, I’m saying it’s the unintended consequences of the market that are usually presented as evidence for the market’s supposed agency (it has runaway, escaped, etc), and intelligence can’t ONLY be dumb.
-
But the reason why it has those features is that the market filters/optimizes in a way that solves some problems and gets trapped by others. Have you been exposed to social choice theory? if you at least know what I'm talking about, Elster's book "Sour Grapes" is v good on this
-
I know bits and pieces, but haven’t studied it in any detail. Not sure what it has to do with whether the market can be considered an agent.
-
you've prolly read "evolution of cooperation," right? so you know that non-sentient processes can be analyzed as if they were following strategies even if they are not literally following strategies?
-
I haven’t.
-
oh, well that's a great book, you're in for a treat. That and Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict" are must-reads
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.