= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
byrnema comments on No Universally Compelling Arguments in Math or Science - 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 (227)
That was well expressed, in a way, but seems to me to miss the central point. People who dthink there are universally compelling arguments in science or maths, don't mean the same thing by "universal". They don't think their universally compelling arguments would work on crazy people, and don't need to be told they wouldn't work on crazy AI's or pocket calculators either. They are just not including those in the set "universal".
ADDED:
It has been mooted that NUCA is intended as a counterblast to Why Can't an AGI Work Out Its Own Morality. It does work against a strong version of that argument: one that says any mind randomly selected from mindspace will be persuadable into morality, or be able to figure it out. Of course the proponents of WCAGIWOM (eg Wei Dai, Richard Loosemore) aren't asserting that.They are assuming that the AGI's in question will come out of an realistic research project , not a random dip into mindspace. They are assuming that the researchers are't malicious, and that the project is reasonably successful. Those constraints impact the argument. A successful AGI would be an intelligent AGI would be a rational AI would be a persuadable AI.
Thanks to the original poster for the post, and the clarification about universal compelling arguments.
I agree with the parent comment, however, that I never matched the meaning that Chris Hallquist used to the phrase 'universally compelling argument'. Within the phrase 'universally compelling argument', I think most people package:
Thus I think this means only a "logical" (rational) mind needs convincing - - one that would update on sound epistemology.
I would guess most people have a definition like this in mind. But these are just definitions, and now I know what you meant by math and science don't have universally compelling arguments. And I agree, using your definition.
Would you make the stronger argument that math and science aren't based on sound epistemology? (Or that there is no such thing as epistemiologically justified ways of knowing?)