Kaj_Sotala comments on Reasons for SIAI to not publish in mainstream journals - Less Wrong

12 Post author: lukeprog 10 April 2011 02:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (37)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 12 April 2011 08:56:27AM 9 points [-]

Data point on why we should publish, The Singularity as Religion mentions:

The singularity is based on science rather than superstition. My reply is that much of what I read about the singularity goes so far beyond any scientific data or present technical achievement that it looks very unscientific. Perhaps someday there will be an artificial general intelligence that far outperforms humans. But plenty of scientists and engineers seem highly skeptical about the grandiose claims of singularitarians. Are any of the claims of the singularitarians empirically testable? Verifiable or falsifiable? Only in some indefinite future. This is what John Hick called eschatological verification. But that’s not science at all. An interesting point here is that many singularitarians don’t seem to be interested in scientific research – such as writing papers for peer-reviewed journals. There is no such thing as the singularitarian research program in any standard academic or commercial sense. It looks like what Feynman called “cargo cult science”. And singularity activists have their own version of Pascal’s Wager. The singularity is so overwhelmingly transformative that even if it has a teeny-tiny chance of happening, the reward or punishment for us will be extremely great. It’s so easy to see! You just have to write out an expected utility equation.

Emphasis mine.

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 May 2015 01:15:50AM 2 points [-]

As far as Feynmanns "cargo cult" science goes. The rat psychologists who Feymanns criticised as doing cargo cult science did follow the procedure of science that involves publishing papers.