3 ms·

Maybe this could be solved by teaching philosophy and logic in our schools. No matter how smart a conversational AI can be, you can still frame its argument and

• retrac 4y ago
  I suspect even philosophers are susceptible to the usual social engineering tricks. One doesn't become immune to effects like preferring a speaker with an attractive face just from exposure to Kant. (Just one notion that occurred to me just now. Won't be long until these things can have a real time "video chat" with users.)
  • maroonblazer 4y ago
    One still has to evaluate an argument on its merits, regardless of the attractiveness of the interlocutor. My hope is that conversational AI will sharpen up our critical thinking skills en masse. We need more people getting into the habit of asking "This sounds plausible, but is it actually true? How can I find out?"
    • TuringTest 4y ago
      > One still has to evaluate an argument on its merits, regardless of the attractiveness of the interlocutor. True, but unfortunately, rational thought is heavily influenced by emotions. You are much more likely to accept some cognitive dissonances if the reasoning is caused by someone you trust, like, or admire. Heavy thinkers are not immune to that, they just produce much more elaborate justifications.
• qsort 4y ago
  > this could be solved by teaching philosophy Plenty of places teach philosophy, including the school I went to in Italy. The only measurable effect is that people feel more self-important because they know the names of long dead people. (Just to clarify this being the Internet: I don't mean philosophy is in itself useless, just that ambitious programs at the high-school level tend to fall flat unless the student has a lot of intrinsic motivation. Latin, computer science, art history, etc. mostly fall in the same category. A better approach is to stick to the basics and offer those as electives.) > and logic Logic done seriously requires a mathematical maturity most high-school students simply don't have. Asking someone to understand models of first-order logic without intuitively grokking what quantifiers are is like asking someone to understand Rust lifetimes without having ever seen malloc. It just doesn't work like that. You'd have better success with stuff like Olympiad problems, but even those require so much training it definitely isn't for everyone.
  • denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Logic done seriously requires a mathematical maturity most high-school students simply don't have. I guess that "done seriously", that's true. But basic logic is like basic arithmetic; they teach that in primary schools. I don't see why they shouldn't teach elementary logic. In one of the Narnia books, the old professor bemoans the fact that "they don't teach logic in schools any more". Philosophy is another matter; I agree with the upthread poster who says that philosophy requires motivation. I don't think an introduction to philosophy is much use, except to help you decide whether you want to learn philosophy properly, e.g. a couple of one-hour classes, so kids at least know what the word means (I didn't know, until I started my philosophy degree).
• sixothree 4y ago
  Imagine being surrounded by hundreds of conversational voices.
  • haolez 4y ago
    Well, this would be hell even if they weren't intelligent. I think this is not the point, but thanks for the nightmare material.
• dghughes 4y ago
  Just keep asking why. A human will get pissed off an "AI" won't.