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'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 -
-
-
What are the limiting qualifiers on that analysis (is it in your grapes... I have it on my Kindle but haven't cracked it open)
-
well, i don't know if we know what limits there are yet... still more in the phase of getting clear on what the limits might be so that we can distinguish conceptual limits from empirical hypotheses (which can be tested etc)
-
I'm intensely distrustful of that model in that case. There's no logical reason to not just axiomatically accept agency ala http://Mr.Land
-
what does that mean "to automatically accept agency"
-
Axiomatic
-
As in the model must presume from the get go that it is an agency driven process for sake of discussion without any analogic qualifiers
-
I see the utility but I don't see how it bypasses poor explanations or errors. There's no possibility or reason to prove when something is agent driven or not
-
Well, read Sour Grapes first and then we'll talk. Idk if you are talking about a question w/in its scope or beyond it. Obv it can't cover everything
- 3 more replies
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.