= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jaibot comments on AI prediction case study 2: Dreyfus's Artificial Alchemy - 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 (18)
Again, the fact that he got the reasons right (the hype cycle, the fact human chess players were performing very differently from what the AI designers were doing, etc...) lifts him up a bit. I don't know what he's been up to since then, though.
Can we find a good baseline predictor today who's performing as well?
Absolutely: "the singularity will never happen, MIRI is wasting its time."
"Never" is not a testable prediction. Break down predictions into finite-time-horizon groups and judge each against the baseline of "nothing happens in the next n years".
Much later edit: IlyaShpitser has correctly pointed out that my comment makes no sense.
Of course "never" is testable. The way to falsify is to exhibit a counterexample. "Human beings will never design a heavier than air flying machine" (Lord Kelvin, 1895), "a computer will never beat the human world champion in chess," etc. All falsified, therefore, all testable. If anything, an infinite horizon statement like "never" is more vulnerable to falsification, and therefore should get more "scientific respect."
It's only testable in one direction -- if you like, "never" is testable but "ever" isn't. I don't have a formal argument to hand, but it seems vaguely to me that a hypothesis preferably-ought to be falsifiable both ways.