3 ms·

There is long history of science-fiction writers painting correct visions of, at the time seemingly impossible future. Sometimes You don't have to be an expert

There is long history of science-fiction writers painting correct visions of, at the time seemingly impossible future. Sometimes You don't have to be an expert to notice the trends in certain domains. I'd go even further - it could be easier to notice the big picture without being overly bothered with nitty-gritty technical details - yes, to further the field they are necessary, but to comment the direction the field is heading in and about its implications for society they are not. I don't necessarily agree with the author, I'm just making a general comment.

the_af 5y ago
> "There is long history of science-fiction writers painting correct visions of, at the time seemingly impossible future" That's a pretty weak argument. I love scifi, and I love for example Philip Dick's writing, yet I would not consider PKD's opinion on the future of AI/AGI particularly relevant. James Cameron is not an authority on AI either. If people said "Yudkowsky is a nice fanfiction author" it would be one thing. But he considers himself an actual AI researcher, and that's just not right. He is not qualified, and has no accomplishments in the area, other than writing fanfiction about it.
- psyc 5y ago
  You keep hammering on with the same lazy slander. Yudkowsky was well known long before he wrote the popular Harry Potter fanfic, which incidentally is pedagogical / allegorical. Because his main roles are teacher and philosopher, and philosophers do that. Here's a sampling of his non-fiction writing: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/sequences https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/sequences https://intelligence.org/files/EthicsofAI.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/EthicsofAI.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 https://intelligence.org/files/AlignmentMachineLearning.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/AlignmentMachineLearning.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://intelligence.org/files/Corrigibility.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/Corrigibility.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/DefinabilityTruthDraft.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/DefinabilityTruthDraft.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf But you'll just say there's nothing of value there, and it's somehow figuratively "fan fiction", because he didn't go to college, and he doesn't work much on ML, which is clearly the end-all of AI.
anotherman554 5y ago
"There is long history of science-fiction writers painting correct visions of, at the time seemingly impossible future." Science fiction writers tell entertaining lies to amuse their readership. They are generally not really trying to "pain correct visions" of anything, and you are greatly exaggerating the extent they have success in this endeavor, which again, is generally not something they are even trying to accomplish.

the_af 5y ago

> "There is long history of science-fiction writers painting correct visions of, at the time seemingly impossible future" That's a pretty weak argument. I love scifi, and I love for example Philip Dick's writing, yet I would not consider PKD's opinion on the future of AI/AGI particularly relevant. James Cameron is not an authority on AI either. If people said "Yudkowsky is a nice fanfiction author" it would be one thing. But he considers himself an actual AI researcher, and that's just not right. He is not qualified, and has no accomplishments in the area, other than writing fanfiction about it.

psyc 5y ago
You keep hammering on with the same lazy slander. Yudkowsky was well known long before he wrote the popular Harry Potter fanfic, which incidentally is pedagogical / allegorical. Because his main roles are teacher and philosopher, and philosophers do that. Here's a sampling of his non-fiction writing: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/sequences https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/sequences https://intelligence.org/files/EthicsofAI.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/EthicsofAI.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060 https://intelligence.org/files/AlignmentMachineLearning.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/AlignmentMachineLearning.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577 https://intelligence.org/files/Corrigibility.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/Corrigibility.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/DefinabilityTruthDraft.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/DefinabilityTruthDraft.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf But you'll just say there's nothing of value there, and it's somehow figuratively "fan fiction", because he didn't go to college, and he doesn't work much on ML, which is clearly the end-all of AI.

anotherman554 5y ago

"There is long history of science-fiction writers painting correct visions of, at the time seemingly impossible future." Science fiction writers tell entertaining lies to amuse their readership. They are generally not really trying to "pain correct visions" of anything, and you are greatly exaggerating the extent they have success in this endeavor, which again, is generally not something they are even trying to accomplish.