2) Here's the critic, Phil Torres, pointing out Pinker's error: https://www.salon.com/2019/01/26/steven-pinkers-fake-enlightenment-his-book-is-full-of-misleading-claims-and-false-assertions/ …pic.twitter.com/bpcSCXjGdv
Show this thread
1) I'm frustrated Steven Pinker won't admit an error in Enlightenment Now. Summary: - Pinker names Stuart Russell as an expert who's skeptical of AI risk - Someone points out that's exactly backwards; Russell is one of the main experts warning about AI risk - Pinker doubles down
-
-
-
3) Here's Pinker's response to Torres. He cites a post Russell wrote which says there are "reasons for optimism" about AI risk. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/a-response-from-steve-pinker-to-salons-hit-piece-on-enlightenment-now/ …pic.twitter.com/14oGfvxB1s
Show this thread -
4) But Russell says in that post that AI could wipe out humanity & we need ppl working on AI safety. His reasons for optimism at the end don't negate what he believes is a serious risk. I don't see how you could read this & call him a skeptic of AI risk. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26157 …pic.twitter.com/3od2wUYro0
Show this thread -
5) And you can easily find other articles and interviews with Russell where he talks about AI as an existential threat, e.g.: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602776/yes-we-are-worried-about-the-existential-risk-of-artificial-intelligence/ …pic.twitter.com/hPNHdt8fdm
Show this thread -
6) To be clear: I ~agree with the thesis of Enlightenment Now. I like Pinker's work in general. There are lots of dumb critiques of Pinker. I'm not taking a position on the AI risk issue here. My point is it's bad that Pinker got this fact wrong and won't admit it. /end
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
His response to Torres is entirely satisfactory, IMO. You can quote people who don’t themselves agree with you.
-
That's not what Pinker did in this case. He described Russell as someone who is "publicly skeptical" of AI risk:pic.twitter.com/LU7vyqy2O2
-
+1, there’s a critical difference between suggesting that another person’s arguments imply a different conclusion than one they’ve come to, and misrepresenting their conclusions
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hard to recall him ever admitting an error.
-
Yeah I’ve been trying and failing to think of an example... there must be one??
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This might be the first time pinker was wrong. I need to lie down.
-
I like Pinker and think he's usually correct regarding the big picture, but some of the scholarship in better angels was sloppy as well https://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/11/steven-pinker-and-an-lushan-revolt.html?m=1 …
-
I agree with Saloni's take on that thread.https://twitter.com/salonium/status/978550156462141440?s=19 …
-
I assume that she's part of the IDW crowd? If so, that would most certainly explain this:pic.twitter.com/RORyWBO13i
-
I wouldn’t classify her that way, dunno if she would.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Starting to suspect there's a Gell-Man amnesia effect that keeps Pinker going. Every subject he touches on experts call him out. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect …
- 1 more reply
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.