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

Comment author: Mark_Friedenbach 29 January 2015 09:25:01PM -1 points [-]

You have a credible reason for thinking it will take longer?

Comment author: MugaSofer 29 January 2015 10:21:01PM *  0 points [-]

I'm no expert, but even Kurzweil - who, from past performance, is usually correct but over-optimistic by maybe five, ten years - doesn't expect us to beat the Turing Test until (checks) 2030, with full-on singularity hitting in 2045.

2020 is in five years. The kind of progress that would seem to imply - from where we are now to full-on human-level AI in just five years - seems incredible.

Comment author: ike 28 January 2015 04:52:00AM *  3 points [-]

So if you were trying to maximise total points, wouldn't it be best to never let it out because you lose a lot more if it destroys the world than you gain from getting solutions?

What values for points make it rational to let the AI out, and is it also rational in the real-world analogue?

Comment author: MugaSofer 29 January 2015 01:28:41PM 0 points [-]

We rolled randomly the ethics of the AI, rolled random events with dice and the AI offered various solutions to those problems... You lost points if you failed to deal with the problems and lost lots of points if you freed the AI and they happened to have goals you disagreed with like annihilation of everything.

Comment author: MugaSofer 29 January 2015 01:08:14PM 0 points [-]

many now believe that strong AI may be achieved sometime in the 2020s

Yikes, but that's early. That's a lot sooner than I would have said, even as a reasonable lower bound.

Comment author: dxu 16 January 2015 08:17:48PM *  3 points [-]

This may be somewhat off-topic, but I've been noticing for some time that your comments frequently receive seemingly "random" downvotes--that is to say, downvotes that appear to be there for no good reason. As an example, the comment that I am replying to right now has a karma score of -1 at the time of posting, despite not being clearly mistaken or in violation of some LW social norm. Checking your profile reveals that your total karma score is in the negatives, despite the fact that you seem like a fairly well-read person, as well as a long-time user of LW. Does anyone have any idea why this is the case?

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 January 2015 03:46:20AM *  2 points [-]

Yikes, you're right. I had noticed something odd, but forgot to look into it. Dangit.

I'm pretty sure this is somebody going to the trouble of downvoting every comment of mine, which has happened before.

It's against the rules, so I'll ask a mad to look into it; but obviously, if someone cares enough about something I'm doing or wrong about this much, please, PM me. I can't interpret you through meaningless downvotes, but I'll probably stop whatever is bothering you if I know what it is.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 16 January 2015 10:01:08PM 2 points [-]

A quick scan of the last couple of pages of MugaSofer's comments seems to indicate that the last handful of comments have not received negative votes, and a long sequence of comments before that have consistently received a single negative vote each, which looks like systematic downvoting to me (by someone who hasn't yet caught up) but of course is not remotely definitive.

That said, the net balance of them is generally positive, which means the negative balance isn't accounted for either way.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 January 2015 03:30:52AM *  2 points [-]

I can give you a little more data - this has happened before, which is why I'm in the negatives. Which I guess makes it more likely to happen again, if I'm that annoying :/

It turned out to be a different person to the famous case, they were reasonable and explained their (accurate) complaint via PM. Probably not the same person this time, but if it happened once ...

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 January 2015 09:46:37PM 3 points [-]

Ooh, I hadn't thought of that.

This is one of the standard scholarly explanations May I suggest this shows that you should maybe read more on this subject?

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 January 2015 03:11:43AM 0 points [-]

Yup, definitely. Interested amateur here.

Comment author: gjm 15 January 2015 05:01:49PM 4 points [-]

I think the claim isn't quite "it has a mistake, therefore it can't be meant to be interpreted at face value" but "it has a really glaringly obvious mistake, therefore it can't be meant to be interpreted at face value".

That's a lot more sensible, and using this principle doesn't make you incapable of recognizing mistakes. It does make you incapable of recognizing when the people who put together your sacred text did something incredibly stupid, but maybe that's OK.

Except that I think another reasonable interpretation is: whoever edited the text into a form that contains both stories did notice that they are inconsistent, didn't imagine that somehow they are both simultaneously correct, but did intend them to be taken at face value -- the implicit thinking being something like "obviously at least one of these is wrong somewhere, but both of them are here in our tradition; probably one is right and the other wrong; I'll preserve them both, so that at least the truth is in here somewhere".

If this sort of thing is possible -- and I think it's very plausible -- then the inference from "glaring inconsistency" to "intended metaphorically or something like that" no longer works. On the other hand, in that case you at least have some precedent for it being OK not to assume that everything in the text is literally correct.

Comment author: MugaSofer 15 January 2015 07:45:41PM *  -1 points [-]

There's also the problem of people taking things meant to be metaphorical as literal, simply because, well, it's right there, right?

For example (just ran into this today):

Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV

This is pretty clearly an illustration. "Like this tree, you'd better actually give results, not just give the appearance of being moral". (In fact, I believe Jesus uses this exact illustration in a sermon later.)

And yet, I saw this on a list of "God's Temper Tantrums that Christians Never Mention", presumably interpreted as "Jesus zapped a tree because it annoyed him."

Except that I think another reasonable interpretation is: whoever edited the text into a form that contains both stories did notice that they are inconsistent, didn't imagine that somehow they are both simultaneously correct, but did intend them to be taken at face value -- the implicit thinking being something like "obviously at least one of these is wrong somewhere, but both of them are here in our tradition; probably one is right and the other wrong; I'll preserve them both, so that at least the truth is in here somewhere".

Ooh, I hadn't thought of that.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 09 January 2015 10:08:50PM 0 points [-]

USian fundamentalist-evangelical Christianity, however, is ... exceptionally bad at reading their supposedly all-important sacred text, though. And, indeed, facts in general. We're talking about the movement that came up with and is still pushing "creationism", here.

Historically that isn't quite true to credit anything there to the US. Pre-Darwin insistence on a literal global flood could be found in locations all over Europe. But more relevant to the point, I don't see how this is a good example: if anything this is one where the fundamentalists are actually reading the text closer to what a naive reading means, without any stretched attempts to claim a metaphorical intent that is hard to see in the text. The problem of trying to read the Genesis text in a way that is consistent with the evidence is something that smart people have been trying for a very long time now, so that leads to a lot of very well done apologetics to choose from, but that doesn't mean it is actually what the text intended. It is true that the more, for lack of a better term, sophisticated creationists due stretch the text massive (claims about mats of vegetation to help preserve life during the flood and claims of rapid post-deluge speciation both fall into that category), but they A) aren't that common claims and B) aren't any more stretches than what liberal interpretations of the text are doing.

Comment author: MugaSofer 15 January 2015 01:01:07PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't see how this is a good example: if anything this is one where the fundamentalists are actually reading the text closer to what a naive reading means, without any stretched attempts to claim a metaphorical intent that is hard to see in the text. The problem of trying to read the Genesis text in a way that is consistent with the evidence is something that smart people have been trying for a very long time now, so that leads to a lot of very well done apologetics to choose from, but that doesn't mean it is actually what the text intended.

Well, I'm a Christian, so I might be biased in favour of interpretations that make that seem reasonable. But even so, I find it hard to believe a text that includes two mutually-contradictory creation stories (right next to each other in the text, at that) intended them to be interpreted literally.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 January 2015 05:06:46PM 2 points [-]

including the fact that they're wildly misinterpreting key passages and it's really really obvious

Worth noting here that both groups are convinced that this applies to the other group.

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 January 2015 09:47:12PM *  2 points [-]

both groups are convinced that this applies to the other group.

Oh, it does apply, generally. That's mindkilling for you.

USian fundamentalist-evangelical Christianity, however, is ... exceptionally bad at reading their supposedly all-important sacred text, though. And, indeed, facts in general. We're talking about the movement that came up with and is still pushing "creationism", here.

I'm Irish, and we seem to have pretty much no equivalent movement in Europe; our conservative Christians follow a different, traditionalist-Catholic model. The insanity that (presumably) sparked this article is fairly American in nature, but the metaphor is general enough that it presumably applies to all traditions? The conflict is still largely liberal-vs-conservative here, albeit based on different (and usually more obscure) doctrinal arguments.

Comment author: Jiro 08 January 2015 10:06:20PM 1 point [-]

Wouldn't the attitude of moderate Muslims to more extreme Muslims often be an example of where the metaphor does work?

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 January 2015 09:35:04PM 0 points [-]

I don't know nearly as many Muslims as I do Christians, but I generally get the impression that liberal Muslims don't have unusually strong reactions to atheism and other religions? Whereas they are, if anything, more threatened by Muslim terrorists - because of the general name-blackening, in addition to the normal fear response to your tribe being attacked.

Has this not been your experience?

View more: Next