3 ms·
Yeah I'm not a philosopher, but I am an artificial intelligence researcher, and I feel like these questions have some aspect of the old rules based or expert sy
by version_five 5y ago
Yeah I'm not a philosopher, but I am an artificial intelligence researcher, and I feel like these questions have some aspect of the old rules based or expert system thinking in them, where we try to codify human thinking and it doesn't work because there are always edge cases and new information.
These, and questions like them (typical of many surveys) assume that its possible to give an answer to a complex question based on limited (or closed) sets of facts. It's not in general, if it was we'd have human-like rules engines
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI think this is the opposite of surveys. It gives you a set of unquestionable facts to eliminate edge cases. It is not claiming that it can be generalized to the edge cases or new information. If anything, I think the failure that people make when taking it is an inability to distinguish between absolute questions and general question. Without this skill, you end up with people saying "torture is unacceptable under any circumstance", then later saying "I didn't mean to include the circumstances where the stakes are high or it will work"