ZacHirschman

I think you have hit upon the crux of the matter in your last paragraph: the authors are in no way trying to find the best solution. I can't speak for the authors you cite, but the questions asked by philosophers are different than, "what is the best answer?" They are more along the lines of, "How do we generate our answers anyways?" and "What might follow?" This may lead to an admittedly harmful lack of urgency in updating beliefs.

Because I enjoy making analogies: Science provides the map of the real world; philosophy is the ... (read more)

It feels to me as though you are cherrypicking both evidence and topic. It may very well be that philosophers have a lot of work to do in the important AI field. This does not invalidate the process. Get rid of the term, talk about the process of refining human intelligence through means other than direct observation. The PROCESS, not the results (like the article you cite).

Speaking of that article from Noûs, it was published in 2010. Pearl did lots of work on counterfactuals and uncertainty dating back to 1980, but I would argue that, "The algorithmi... (read more)

It seems to me that pop philosophy is being compared to rigorous academic science. Philosophers make great effort to undertand each others' frameworks. Controversy and disagreement abound, but exercising the mind in predicting consequences using mental models is fundamental to both scientific progress AND everyday life. You and I may disagree on our metaphysical views, but that doesn't prevent us from exploring the consequences each viewpoint predicts. Eventually, we may be able to test these beliefs. Predicting these consequences in advance helps us use r... (read more)

Well said again, and well-considered that ideas in minds can only move forwards through time (not a physical law). My initial reaction to this article was, "What about philosophy of science?" However, it seems my PoSc objections extend to other realms of philosophy as well. Thank you for leading me here.

Popper (or Popperism) predicted that falsifiable models would yield more information than non-falsifiable ones.

I don't think this is precisely testable, but it references precisely testable models. That is why I would categorize it as philosophy (of science), but not science.

Yes, I may have made an inferential leap here that was wrong or unnecessary. You and I agree very strongly on there being a distinction between Philosophy of Science and Experimental Philosophy. I wanted to draw a distinction between the kind of, "street philosophy" done by Socrates and the more rigorous, mathematical Philosophy of Science. "Experiment" may not have been the most appropriate verbiage.

I would be glad to reconsider my stance that this rationalist community privileges emotivist readings of ethics. I will begin looking into... (read more)

I like your interpretation of philosophy as it pertains to ethics, aesthetics, and perhaps metaphysics. Your Socrates example, and LW in general, privileges emotivist ethics, but this is an interesting point and not a drawback. Looking at ethics as a cognitive science is not necessarily a flawed approach, but it is important to consider the potential alternative models.

Philosophy has a branch called "philosophy of science" where your dissolution falls apart. Popperian falsifiability, Kuhnian paradigm shifts, and Bayesian reasoning all fall into t... (read more)

I don't mean to advocate an epiphany-driven model of discovery.

To use your Scientology example and terminology, what I am advocating is not that we find the "next big thing," but that we pursue refinement of the original, "genuinely useful material." Of course, it is much easier to advocate this than to put the work in, but that's why I'm using the open thread.

There are some legitimate issues with some of the Sequences (both resolved and unresolved). The comments represent a very nice start, but there may be some serious philosophical work to be done. There is a well of knowledge about pursuing wells of knowledge, and I would find it purposeful to refine the effective pursuit of knowledge.

What are your heuristics for telling whether posts/comments contain "high-quality opinions," or "LW mainstream"? Also, what did you think of Loosemore's recent post on fallacies in AI predictions?

I see that I used the word "growth" capriciously. I don't necessarily mean greater numbers, I mean the opposite of stagnation. Of course a call for action is easier and less effective than acting, but that's why we have open threads.

A few thoughts on Mark_Friedenbach's recent departure:

I thought it could be unpacked into two main points. (1) is that Mark is leaving the community. To Mark, or anyone who makes this decision, I think the rational response is, "good luck and best wishes." We are here for reasons, and when those reasons wane, I wouldn't begrudge anyone looking elsewhere or doing other things.

(2) is that the community is in need of growth. My interpretation of this is as follows: the Sequences are not updated, and yet they are still referenced as source material. ... (read more)

The impermanence of things is an excellent reason to get really enthusiastic about them.

I think of it as "improvematism." Maybe "improvementism" would sound more serious.

"What if they kicked the mirror-maker out of town and awarded the actual worker?"

This is the question I keep asking myself. In the story as written, the village rewards the clever skilled worker over the diligent skilled worker. This might work in the short term, and the clever worker's gamble pays off for him personally as he sees increased business from increased prestige. If we consider the village (or the judges) to be actors in the game, however, they act in their own disinterest by disincentivizing craftsmanship in favor of craftiness. And here I am, arguing for or against a parable...

The difference being that on a football field or basketball court, there is a settled outcome of competition, and no sincere value attached to certain outcomes. An average person might prefer that their chosen sports team wins, but I think they would acknowledge that it does not make the world a better place. In politics, however, the preference that a chosen team wins is very closely tied to the view that the win is beneficial for everybody.

"... thinking through the implications of an AI that is so completely unable to handle context, that it can live with Grade A contradictions at the heart of its reasoning, leads us to a mass of unbelievable inconsistencies in the 'intelligence' of this supposed superintelligence."

This is all at once concise, understandable, and reassuring. Thank you. I still wonder if we are accurately broadening the scope of defined "intelligence" out too far, but my wonder comes from gaps in my specific knowledge and not from gaps in your argument.

The idea that I find least entangled but still very potentially beneficial is that politics is the mind-killer. I realize it's an old sequence, and it doesn't have much traction here (since LW is ostensibly un-killed minds).

Feel free to disengage; TheAncientGeek helped me shift my paradigm correctly.

Thank you for responding and attempting to help me clear up my misunderstanding. I will need to do another deep reading, but a quick skim of the article from this point of view "clicks" a lot better for me.

You have my apologies if you thought I was attacking or pigeonholing your argument. While I lack the technical expertise to critique the technical portion of your argument, I think it could benefit from a more explicit avoidance of the fallacy mentioned above. I thought the article was very interesting and I will certainly come back to it if I ever get to the point where I can understand your distinctions between swarm intelligence and CFAI. I understand you have been facing attacks for your position in this article, but that is not my intention. Your meti... (read more)