= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on The genie knows, but doesn't care - 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 (515)
I didn't say everyone who rejects any of the theses does so purely because s/he didn't understand it. That doesn't make it cease to be a problem that most AGI researchers don't understand all of the theses, or the case supporting them. You may be familiar with the theses only from the Sequences, but they've all been defended in journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers. See e.g. Chalmers 2010 and Chalmers 2012 for the explosion thesis, or Bostrom 2012 for the orthogonality thesis.
Your psychological speculation fails you. I actually read the articles I cited, and I found their arguments convincing.
This makes it sound like you've never read anything by those two authors on the subject. Possibly you're trying to generalize from your cached idea of a 'philosopher'. Expertise in philosophy does not in itself make one less qualified to weigh in on meta-ethics, normative ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, moral psychology, philosophy of cognitive and information sciences, or for that matter AI theory. Read the papers I cited. They get the empirical facts right, they focus on the issues philosophy is more or less built for, and they present their case clearly and concisely. If philosophers have no place in this debate, then they have no place in any debate.
What's the distinction you have in mind?
No? I've cited Omohundro before, and I'll cite him again.