6 ms·
> And if you had originally stated your point that way, I would probably pointed out that there is equally no evidence that it will not be useful, if it turns o
by qsort 6y ago
> And if you had originally stated your point that way, I would probably pointed out that there is equally no evidence that it will not be useful, if it turns out to be the case.
No objections, but isn't it a bit weird to argue that we should do that just in case it might be useful someday? We'll deal with it when it comes up.
> Clearly, I failed to get my point across
I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure there's an argument but I just don't get it. I'm not really following the train of thought anymore.
>> I'll take the seventh.
>? - I'm not familiar with this expression.
Play on words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
- mannykannot 6y ago> No objections, but isn't it a bit weird to argue that we should do that just in case it might be useful someday? That is not an argument that we should do that just in case it might be useful someday, it is just a response to the quoted statement. As you know, I am not in favor of the current usage of "intelligence" in AI, and the only thing we differ on in that regard is whether it matters much. > I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure there's an argument but I just don't get it. It is an argument that ontologies are not privileged, canonical or fixed ways of representing the world; they have to conform to current knowledge as it evolves, or be replaced, and they are only interesting if they can "earn their keep" by being useful. Consequently, I do not think your argument from ontology, that this abusage of "intelligence" is a big deal, is definitive.