Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
since I don't know what "philosophy" really is (and I'm not even sure it really is a thing).
since I don't know what "philosophy" really is (and I'm not even sure it really is a thing).
I find it's best to treat philosophy as simply a field of study, albeit one that is odd in that most of the questions asked within the field are loosely tied together at best. (There could be a connection between normative bioethics and ontological questions regarding the nature of nothingness, I suppose, but you wouldn't expect a strong connection from the outset) To do otherwise invites counter-example too easily and I don't think there is much (if anything) to gain in asking what philosophy really is.
Technical note: some of these are Torts, not Crimes. (Singing Happy Birthday, Watching a Movie, or making an Off-Color Joke are not crimes, barring special circumstances, but they may well be Torts.)
Is there anyone going to the April CFAR Workshop that could pick me up from the airport? I'll be arriving at San Francisco International at 5 PM if anyone can help me get out there. (I think I have a ride back to the airport after the workshop covered, but if I don't I'll ask that seperately.)
I tend to think this is the wrong question.
Here's roughly what happens: there are various signals (light, air waves, particulates in the air) that humans have the capacity to detect and translate into neural states which can then be acted on. This is useful because the generation, presence, and redirection of these signals is affected by other objects in the world. So a human can not only detect objects that generate these signals, it can also detect how other objects around it are affected by these signals, granting information that the human brain can then act upon.
All of this is occurring in reality: the brain's neural firings, the signals and their detection, the objects that generate and are affected by the signals. There is no "outside reality" that the human is looking in from.
If you break it down into other questions, you get sensible answers:
"Does the human brain have the capacity to gain information from the ball without a medium?"
"Is the human brain's information about the ball physically co-located with some area of the brain itself?"
"Is the signal detected by the sense-organs co-located with some area of the brain itself?"
Potentially at certain points of interaction, but not for its entire history, no.
"What about the neural activity?"
That's co-located with the brain.
"So are you trying to say you are only 'Directly acquainted' with the signal at the point where it interacts with your sense-organ?"
I don't think calling it 'directly acquainted' picks out any particular property. If you are asking if it is co-located with some portion of my brain, the answer is no. If you are asking if it is causing a physical reaction in some sensory organ, the answer is yes.
I just hope that the newly-dubbed Machine Intelligence Research Institute doesn't put too much focus on advertising for donations.
That would create a MIRI-ad of issues.
Sorry, if I don't let the pun out it has to live inside my head.
I find it unlikely that scientific secrecy is never the right answer, just as I find it unlikely that scientific secrecy is always the right answer.
Qualitatively, I'd say it has something to do with the ratio of expected harm of immediate discovery vs. the current investment and research in the field. If the expected risks are low, by all means publish so that any risks that are there will be found. If the risks are high, consider the amount of investment/research in the field. If the investment is high, it is probably better to reveal your research (or parts of it) in the hope of creating a substantive dialogue about risks. If the investment is low, it is less likely that anyone will come up with the same discovery and so you may want to keep it a secret. This probably also varies by field with respect to how many competing paradigms are available and how incremental the research is: psychologists work with a lot of different theories of the mind, many of which do not explicitly endorse incremental theorizing, so it is less likely that a particular piece of research will be duplicated while biologists tend to have larger agreement and their work tends to be more incremental, making it more likely that a particular piece of research will be duplicated.
Honestly, I find cases of alternative pleading such as V_V's post here suspect. It is a great rhetorical tool, but reality isn't such that alternative pleading actually can map onto the state of the world. "X won't work, you shouldn't do X in cases where it does work, and even if you think you should do X, it won't turn out as well" is a good way to persuade a lot of different people, but it can't actually map onto anything.
I usually turn to the Principle of Explosion to explain why one should have core axioms in their ethics, (specifically non-contradictory axioms). If some principle you use in deciding what is or is not ethical creates a contradiction, you can justify any action on the basis of that contradiction. If the axioms aren't explicit, the chance of a hidden contradiction is higher. The idea that every action could be ethically justified is something that very few people will accept, so explaining this usually helps.
I try to understand that thinking this way is odd to a lot of people and that they may not have explicit axioms, and present the idea as "something to think about." I think this also helps me to deal with people not having explicit rules that they follow, since it A) helps me cut off the rhetorical track of "Well, I don't need principles" by extending the olive branch to the other person; and B) reminds me that many people haven't even tried to think about what grounds their ethics, much less what grounds what grounds their ethics.
I usually use the term "rule" or "principle" as opposed to "axiom," merely for the purpose of communication: most people will accept that there are core ethical rules or core ethical principles, but they may have never even used the word "axiom" before and be hesitant on that basis alone.
" No route to host Error"
I figure the easiest way to delay a human on the other end of a computer is to simulate an error as best I can. For a GAI, this time is probably invaluable.
That depends on the level of explanation the teacher requires and the level of the material. I'd say that at least until you get into calculus, you can work off of memorizing answers. I'd even go so far as to say that most students do, and succeed to greater or lesser degrees, based on my tutoring experiences. I am not sure to what degree you can "force" understanding: you can provide answers that require understanding, but it helps to guide that process.
I went to a lot of schools, so I can contrast here.
I had more than one teacher that taught me multiplication. One taught it as "memorize multiplication tables 1x1 through 9x9. Then you use these tables, ones place by ones place, ones place by tens place, etc." One problem with this approach is that while it does act as an algorithm and does get you the right answer, you have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. If you screw up part of the process, there's no way to check your answer: to a student in that state, multiplication just is "look up the table, apply the answer, add one zero to the end for every place higher than one that the number occupied."
Whereas I had another teacher, who explained it in terms of groups: you are trying to figure out how many total objects you would have if you had this many groups of that, or that many groups of this. 25 is the right answer because if you have 5 groups of 5 things, you generally have 25 things in total. This is a relatively simple way of trying to explain the concept in terms of what you are trying to track, rather than just rote memorization. Fortunately, I had this teacher earlier.
The point being that you can usually teach things either way: actually, I think some combination of both is helpful. Teach the rote memorization but explain why it is true in terms of some understanding. Some memorization is useful: I don't want to actually visualize groups of objects when I do 41x38. But knowing that is what I am trying to track (at least at the basic level of mathematical understanding I acquired in the 2nd grade) is useful.
I think the worry is that they are only concerned about getting the answer that gets them the good grade, rather than understanding why the answer they get is the right answer.
So you end up learning the symbols "5x5=25," but you don't know what that means. You may not even have an idea that corresponds to multiplication. You just know that when you see "5x5=" you write "25." If I ask you what multiplication is, you can't tell me: you don't actually know. You are disconnected from what the process you are learning is supposed to be tracking, because all you have learned is to put in symbols where you see other symbols.
All it takes is a username and password
Already have an account and just want to login?
Forgot your password?