Your conclusion was insightful. "One thing I’m repeatedly struck by in discussions on these matters with > you and other SIAI folks, *is the way the strings of reason are pulled by > the puppet-master of intuition.* With so many of these topics on which we > disagree — for example: the Scary Idea, the importance of optimization for > intelligence, the existence of strongly convergent goals for intelligences > — you and the other core SIAI folks share a certain set of intuitions, > which seem quite strongly held. Then you formulate rational arguments in > favor of these intuitions — but the conclusions that result from these > rational arguments are very weak. For instance, the Scary Idea intuition > corresponds to a rational argument that “superhuman AGI might plausibly > kill everyone.” The intuition about strongly convergent goals for > intelligences, corresponds to a rational argument about goals that are > convergent for a “wide range” of intelligences. And your intuition that > Bayesian, probabilistic inference is broadly critical, is much stronger > than is justified by your best rational arguments in favor of this > intuition (e.g. Cox’s Theorem and de Finetti’s Dutch Book arguments, which > hold only under special and unrealistic conditions.)" >
---- "Those who can, do. Those who can't, form think tanks." "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." Alan Kay<http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/futures.htm>. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
