Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

jmh comments on The Critical Rationalist View on Artificial Intelligence - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: Fallibilist 06 December 2017 05:26PM

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

Comments (65)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: jmh 06 December 2017 06:34:16PM *  1 point [-]

"Critical Rationalism says that an entity is either a universal knowledge creator or it is not. There is no such thing as a partially universal knowledge creator. So animals such as dogs are not universal knowledge creators — they have no ability whatsoever to create knowledge"

From what you say prior to the quoted bit I don't even know why one needs to say anything about dogs. The either universal knowledge creator (UKC) or not is largely (or should this be binary as well?) a tautological statement. It's not clear that you could prove dogs are or are not in either of the two buckets. The status of dogs with regard to UKC certinaly doesn't follow from the binary claim statement.

Perhaps this is a false premise embedded in your thinking that helps you get to (didn't read to the end) some conclusion about how an AI must also be a universal knowledge creator so on par with humans (in your/the CR assessment) so humans must respect the AI as enjoying the same rights as a human.

Comment author: Fallibilist 06 December 2017 09:55:12PM 0 points [-]

Note the "There is no such thing as a partially universal knowledge creator.". That means an entity either is a UKC or it has no ability, or approximately zero ability, to create knowledge. Dogs are in the latter bucket.

Comment author: jmh 08 December 2017 02:31:08PM 0 points [-]

That conclusion -- "dogs are not UKC" doesn't follow from the binary statement about UKC. You're being circular here and not even in a really good way.

While you don't provide any argument for your conclusion about the status of dogs as UKC one might make guesses. However all the guess I can make are 1) just that and have nothing to go with what you might be thinking and 2) all result in me coming to the conclusion that there are NO UKC. That would hardly be a conclusion you would want to aim at.

Comment author: Fallibilist 10 December 2017 06:27:57AM 0 points [-]

I would be happy to rewrite the first line to say: An entity is either a UKC or it has zero -- or approximately zero -- potential to create knowledge. Does that help?

Comment author: jmh 12 December 2017 01:13:36PM 0 points [-]

Well it's better than jumping to unsupported conclusion I suppose that should help at some level. Not sure it really helps with regard to either 1 or 2 in my response but that's a different matter I think.