After reading this once I expected people to get extremely mad about it, because it’s so abstract with few big words
Conversation
Reading it again, it actually has a ton of big words hiding in it, but the weaponized clarity prevents you from noticing them
2
1
8
I’m still surprised people aren’t more mad about it though, it takes a dizzyingly abstract perspective on things we thought we knew about
4
2
Replying to
I am entirely 100% unsurprised it isn't making anyone mad :D
David is taking AI seriously in this post. It's mostly theater to the people who talk the most about. This is as relevant to the theater as astronomy is to astrology.
2
1
10
The ONLY time I ever recall astrologers getting mad at astronomers was when the latter decided to add a new constellation (Ophiucus) to the zodiac. It was like a gerrymandering debate :D
2
12
very nice! So the field that best describes the problems of A.I., meta-rationality, is what needs to be included in solving the problem of A.I..
1
Nah, I think the field needs to be simply broken up into 6 pieces like Draper thinks California ought to be. There is really no good reason for it to exist in its present ill-posed form besides anthropomorphic conceit. David may differ on that.
If we are making something like our own intelligence then obviously it needs to be like us meaning able to do all the things. But if not... Then it's better to focus.
1


