Conversation

Tfw I take AI too seriously and explain it too clearly so nobody even gets mad
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
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.
1
22
Replying to
Only a sensationalist critique can penetrate a sensationalist discourse. Friend of mine has a similar problem: he writes coherently, non-sensationally and with carefully evidence about animal rights and veganism, and is surprised when he gets less traction than he expects
2
4
Replying to
Don't know about obvious (it's the sort of argument you evaluate on solidity rather than obviousness). Coming from the adjacent field of control theory which does in fact obsess over the science/math bits of the domain (convergence/stability, new interestingness) it seemed solid
2
Replying to and
This is probably exactly what won't work. Bostrom is straddling the line between philosophy and philosophical science fiction. I think that many serious researchers find him brilliant and inspiring, but about as much worth attacking or defending as Asimov...
1
1
Replying to and
If you want to attack Bostrom in earnest, you may have to redo his calculations and things become rather technical and you will have to be smarter than Anders Sandberg and good luck with that. Otherwise you can just smear him, and while that has an audience, it is boring.
1
1
Replying to and
I disagree. The most significant criticism of Bostrom is not that he might get some argument wrong, but that his flights may not be practically relevant. Chapman is relevant, but a broken metaphysical foundation is precisely the problem of his work, and leads to "nebulosity".