= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MatthewBaker comments on The Singularity Institute's Arrogance Problem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (307)
I admire the phrase "what an algorithm feels like from the inside". This is certainly one of Yudkowsky's better ideas, if it is one of his. I think that one can see the roots of it in G.E.B. Still, this may well count as something novel.
Nonetheless, Yudkowsky is not the first compatibilist.
One could define the term in such a way. I tend to take a instrumentalist view on intelligence. However, "the ability to optimize things" may well be a thing. You may as well call it intelligence, if you are so inclined.
This, nonetheless, may not be a solution to the question "what is intelligence?". It seems as though most competent naturalists have moved passed the question.
I apologize, but that does not look like a solution to the Gettier Problem. Could you elaborate?
I have absolutely no knowledge of the history of Newcomb's problem. I apologize.
Further apologies for the following terse statements:
I don't think Fun theory is known by academia. Also, it looks like, at best, a contemporary version of eudaimonia.
The concept of CEV is neat. However, I think if one were to create an ethical version of the pragmatic definition of truth, "The good is the end of inquiry" would essentially encapsulate CEV. Well, as far as one can encapsulate a complex theory with a brief statement.
TDT is awesome. Predicted by the superrationality of Hofstadter, but so what?
I don't mean to discount the intelligence of Yudkowsky. Further, it is extremely unkind of me to be so critical of him, considering how much he has influenced my own thoughts and beliefs. However, he has never written a "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" or a Naming and Necessity. Philosophical influence is something that probably can only be seen, if at all, in retrospect.
Of course, none of this really matters. He's not trying to be a good philosopher. He's trying to save the world.
To quickly sum up Newcomb's problem, Its a question of probability where choosing the more "rational" thing to do will result in a great deal less currency to a traditional probability based decision theory. TDT takes steps to avoid getting stuck 2 boxing, or choosing the more rational of the two choices while applying in the vast majority of other situations.
Apologies, I know what Newcomb's problem is. I simply do not know anything about its history and the history of its attempted solutions.