From their website, it looks like they'll be doing a lot of deep learning research and making the results freely available, which doesn't sound like it would accelerate Friendly AI relative to AI as a whole. I hope they've thought this through.
Edit: It continues to look like their strategy might be counterproductive. [Edited again in response to this.]
Maybe the apparent incompetence is a publicity game, and the do actually know what they're doing?
'Say' is usually a word that refers to verbal experssion.
Are you saying that you do have "X is more likely to be true" as a voice in your head?
Are you saying that you do have "X is more likely to be true" as a voice in your head?
Yes.
I asked what you do and you said something that's not what you do.
In my model most people don't explicitely update at all but let their brains shift beliefs in the way the brain is accustomed to do.
I asked what you do and you said something that's not what you do.
You asked what mental operation I do. In my head, I do say "X is more likely to be true".
You mean you move your mouth and those words come out?
(I apologize if I'm not understanding your point/question.)
As for what words I actually speak, sometimes I say something along the lines of along the lines of "It's ok, your intuition still means something".
I do update
What does that mean in practice? What mental operation do you do?
I say, "X is more likely to be true".
Do you go through an explicit updating procedure on a regular basis in conversations like that? I don't and I think most people don't.
When someone says that they believe X but can't explain why, I do update. As for how I update, it isn't much more than querying my intuition to see what they're track record is in similar contexts.
I predict that if the Pope declares Jesus is God, there will be more worlds in which Jesus is God than worlds in which Jesus is merely the son of God.
If a statement does not say anything about observable reality, there is no objective truth to be determined.
Fair point. I agree that "I have a gut feeling about something non-observable" is a possibility. But so is "I have a gut feeling about something that is observable".
The claim is not observable in any way and offers no testable predictions or anything that even remotely sounds like advice. It's unprovable because it doesn't talk about objective reality.
Which claim? As for the claim that one's intuition is evidence, I predict that in worlds where someone with a good track record has an intuitive belief, the belief will be true more than it will be false.
You shouldn't say, "Well, if you can't provide any evidence, you shouldn't believe what you do."
There are at least two justifications I can think of for this.
I agree with your second point. If your intuition has proven to be false more than true (in a given context), then the intuition your brain produces would be evidence that the intuition is wrong (sorry if that was poorly worded).
As for the first point, I agree that it'd be nice to make an attempt to figure out what it is, but if the attempt fails, I don't think the observation that "Person X reports an intuitive belief that Y is true" should be ignored as evidence.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
If these extreme emotions are indeed useful, then maybe we should look to explicitly seek them out (depending on whether we think we're below the optimal level of the emotion in question).
Thoughts on the usefulness of these emotions:
To anyone who hasn't seen it, Inside Out is a movie that is relevant to this talk about the usefulness of "ups" and "downs".