2 ms·

This isn't a response to the OPs point, where they've stated their beliefs and their logic for them. To it, you've basically said: "well in that case defend th

by XorNot 3y ago

This isn't a response to the OPs point, where they've stated their beliefs and their logic for them. To it, you've basically said: "well in that case defend the times some other people have been incorrect if you're sure this time". Why should they? The OP might be wrong, but whether they are or aren't has nothing to do with whether some unrelated, half-remembered third parties were right or wrong when mispredicting something else. You haven't addressed the content of the OP's actual argument at all, nor established a basis on which it may share similarity with other mispredictions.

Jensson 3y ago
> but whether they are or aren't has nothing to do with whether some unrelated, half-remembered third parties were right or wrong Their argument was "Alternatively, we overestimate human abilities". Since he made that argument it is relevant to see if humans overestimated or underestimated human abilities in the past. My argument is that there is a large tendency for smart people and researchers to underestimate human intelligence, to assume it is easy to solve, we have seen that happen many times in the past. So since smart humans often underestimate human abilities, the "we overestimate human abilities" theory is probably not correct.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Except that isn't true at all: the history of animal research is one of us assigning all human behavior as "uniquely human, requiring great human intelligence" and then discovering it's either replicated in detail in other "lower" animals, or replicated by animals which don't have nearly the apparent cognitive capacity for it[1]. We have an enormous history of vastly over-estimating the intelligence needed for some behaviors to manifest, with the more accurate conclusion being that actually we simply don't understand the nature of intelligence very well. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394149/
  - Jensson 3y ago
    You suggest we under-estimate animal intelligence, which is the same argument I'm making. The reason we underestimate how hard human intelligence is to solve is that we underestimate the animal part of our reasoning, animals can't play chess or do math or write sentences, so when computers do that people assume they are smart like humans. But that assumption hinges on the animal part, like navigating a forest, identifying plants to eat etc, isn't a fundamental part of intelligence or that it is easy to solve in comparison. So yeah, underestimating animal intelligence is a large part of it, I agree with you.

by XorNot 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago

> but whether they are or aren't has nothing to do with whether some unrelated, half-remembered third parties were right or wrong Their argument was "Alternatively, we overestimate human abilities". Since he made that argument it is relevant to see if humans overestimated or underestimated human abilities in the past. My argument is that there is a large tendency for smart people and researchers to underestimate human intelligence, to assume it is easy to solve, we have seen that happen many times in the past. So since smart humans often underestimate human abilities, the "we overestimate human abilities" theory is probably not correct.

XorNot 3y ago
Except that isn't true at all: the history of animal research is one of us assigning all human behavior as "uniquely human, requiring great human intelligence" and then discovering it's either replicated in detail in other "lower" animals, or replicated by animals which don't have nearly the apparent cognitive capacity for it[1]. We have an enormous history of vastly over-estimating the intelligence needed for some behaviors to manifest, with the more accurate conclusion being that actually we simply don't understand the nature of intelligence very well. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394149/
- Jensson 3y ago
  You suggest we under-estimate animal intelligence, which is the same argument I'm making. The reason we underestimate how hard human intelligence is to solve is that we underestimate the animal part of our reasoning, animals can't play chess or do math or write sentences, so when computers do that people assume they are smart like humans. But that assumption hinges on the animal part, like navigating a forest, identifying plants to eat etc, isn't a fundamental part of intelligence or that it is easy to solve in comparison. So yeah, underestimating animal intelligence is a large part of it, I agree with you.