6 ms·

I hate these comments that potray as if every expert/scientist is just good at one thing and aren't particularly great at critical thinking/corporate politics.

I hate these comments that potray as if every expert/scientist is just good at one thing and aren't particularly great at critical thinking/corporate politics. Heck, there are 700 of them. All different humans, good at something, bad at some other things. But they are smart. And of course a good chunk of them would be good at corporate politics too.

_djo_ 3y ago
I don't think the argument was that none of them are good at that, just that it's a mistake to assume that just because they're all very smart in this particular field that they're great at another.
- karmasimida 3y ago
  I don't think critical thinking can be defined as joining the minority party.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Can't critical thinking also include : "I'm about to get a 10mil pay day, hmmm, this is crazy situation, let me think critically how to ride this out and still get the 10mil so my kids can go to college and I don't have to work until I'm 75".
    - goldenkey 3y ago
      Anyone with enough critical thought and understands the hard consciousness problem's true answer (consciousness is the universe evaluating if statements) and where the universe is heading physically (nested complexity), should be seeking something more ceremonious. With AI, we have the power to become eternal in this lifetime, battle aliens, and shape this universe. Seems pretty silly to trade that for temporary security. How boring.
      - WJW 3y ago
        I would expect that actual AI researchers understand that you cannot break the laws of physics just by thinking better. Especially not with ever better LLMs, which are fundamentally in the business of regurgitating things we already know in different combinations rather than inventing new things. You seem to be equating AI with magic, which it is very much not.
        goldenkey 3y ago
        LLMs are able to do complex logic within the world of words. It is a a smaller matrix than our world but fueled by the same chaotic symmetries of our universe. I would not underestimate logic, even when not given adequate data.
        WJW 3y ago
        You can make it sound as esoteric as you want, but in the end an AI will still be bound by the laws of physics. Being infinitely smart will not help with that. I don't think you understand logic very well btw if you wish to suggest that you can reach valid conclusions from inadequate axioms.
        goldenkey 3y ago
        Axioms are constraints as much as they might look like guidance. We live in a neuromorphic computer. Logic explores this, even with few axioms. With fewer axioms, it will be less constrained.
      - suoduandao3 3y ago
        OTOH, there's a very good argument to be made that if you recognize that fact, your short-term priority should be to amass a lot of secular power so you can align society to that reality. So the best action to take might be no different.
        goldenkey 3y ago
    - belter 3y ago
      That is 3D Chess. 5D Chess says those mil will be worthless when the AGI takes over...
      - kaibee 3y ago
        6D Chess is apparently realizing that AGI is not 100% certain and that having 10mm on the run up to AGI is better than not having 10mm on the run up to AGI.
  - _djo_ 3y ago
    Sure, I agree. I was referencing only the idea that being smart in one domain automatically means being a good critical thinker in all domains. I don't have an opinion on what decision the OpenAI staff should have taken, I think it would've been a tough call for everyone involved and I don't have sufficient evidence to judge either way.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Based on the behavior of lots of smart people I worked at with Google during Google’s good times, critical thinking is definitely in the minority party. Brilliant people from Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc would all be leading experts in this or that but would lack critical thinking because they were never forced to develop that skill. Critical thinking is not an innate ability. It has to be honed and exercised like anything else and universities are terrible at it.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Smart is not a one dimensional variable. And critical thinking != corporate politics. Stupidity is defined by self-harming actions and beliefs, not by low IQ. You can be extremely smart and still have a very poor model of the world which leads you to harm yourself and others.
- op00to 3y ago
  Stupidity is defined as “having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense”. You can be extremely smart and still make up your own definitions for words.
- brigandish 3y ago
  I agree. It's better to separate intellect from intelligence instead of conflating them as they usually are. The latter is about making good decisions, which intellect can help with but isn't the only factor. We know this because there are plenty of examples of people who aren't considered shining intellects who can make good choices (certainly in particular contexts) and plenty of high IQ people who make questionable choices.
  - augustk 3y ago
    https://liamchingliu.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/intellectuals-vs-intelligent-people/ https://liamchingliu.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/intellectuals-...
- ameister14 3y ago
  Stupidity is not defined by self-harming actions and beliefs - not sure where you're getting that from. Stupidity is being presented with a problem and an associated set of information and being unable or less able than others are to find the solution. That's literally it.
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    Probably from law 3: https://principia-scientific.com/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity-according-to-cipolla/ https://principia-scientific.com/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-s... But it's an incomplete definition - Cipolla's definition is "someone who causes net harm to themselves and others" and is unrelated to IQ. It's a very influential essay.
mrangle 3y ago
But pronouncing that 700 people are bad at critical thinking is convenient when you disagree with them on desired outcome and yet can't hope to argue points.

_djo_ 3y ago

I don't think the argument was that none of them are good at that, just that it's a mistake to assume that just because they're all very smart in this particular field that they're great at another.

karmasimida 3y ago
I don't think critical thinking can be defined as joining the minority party.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Can't critical thinking also include : "I'm about to get a 10mil pay day, hmmm, this is crazy situation, let me think critically how to ride this out and still get the 10mil so my kids can go to college and I don't have to work until I'm 75".
  - goldenkey 3y ago
    Anyone with enough critical thought and understands the hard consciousness problem's true answer (consciousness is the universe evaluating if statements) and where the universe is heading physically (nested complexity), should be seeking something more ceremonious. With AI, we have the power to become eternal in this lifetime, battle aliens, and shape this universe. Seems pretty silly to trade that for temporary security. How boring.
    - WJW 3y ago
      I would expect that actual AI researchers understand that you cannot break the laws of physics just by thinking better. Especially not with ever better LLMs, which are fundamentally in the business of regurgitating things we already know in different combinations rather than inventing new things. You seem to be equating AI with magic, which it is very much not.
      - goldenkey 3y ago
        LLMs are able to do complex logic within the world of words. It is a a smaller matrix than our world but fueled by the same chaotic symmetries of our universe. I would not underestimate logic, even when not given adequate data.
        WJW 3y ago
        You can make it sound as esoteric as you want, but in the end an AI will still be bound by the laws of physics. Being infinitely smart will not help with that. I don't think you understand logic very well btw if you wish to suggest that you can reach valid conclusions from inadequate axioms.
        goldenkey 3y ago
        Axioms are constraints as much as they might look like guidance. We live in a neuromorphic computer. Logic explores this, even with few axioms. With fewer axioms, it will be less constrained.
    - suoduandao3 3y ago
      OTOH, there's a very good argument to be made that if you recognize that fact, your short-term priority should be to amass a lot of secular power so you can align society to that reality. So the best action to take might be no different.
      - goldenkey 3y ago
  - belter 3y ago
    That is 3D Chess. 5D Chess says those mil will be worthless when the AGI takes over...
    - kaibee 3y ago
      6D Chess is apparently realizing that AGI is not 100% certain and that having 10mm on the run up to AGI is better than not having 10mm on the run up to AGI.
- _djo_ 3y ago
  Sure, I agree. I was referencing only the idea that being smart in one domain automatically means being a good critical thinker in all domains. I don't have an opinion on what decision the OpenAI staff should have taken, I think it would've been a tough call for everyone involved and I don't have sufficient evidence to judge either way.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Based on the behavior of lots of smart people I worked at with Google during Google’s good times, critical thinking is definitely in the minority party. Brilliant people from Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc would all be leading experts in this or that but would lack critical thinking because they were never forced to develop that skill. Critical thinking is not an innate ability. It has to be honed and exercised like anything else and universities are terrible at it.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

Smart is not a one dimensional variable. And critical thinking != corporate politics. Stupidity is defined by self-harming actions and beliefs, not by low IQ. You can be extremely smart and still have a very poor model of the world which leads you to harm yourself and others.

op00to 3y ago
Stupidity is defined as “having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense”. You can be extremely smart and still make up your own definitions for words.
brigandish 3y ago
I agree. It's better to separate intellect from intelligence instead of conflating them as they usually are. The latter is about making good decisions, which intellect can help with but isn't the only factor. We know this because there are plenty of examples of people who aren't considered shining intellects who can make good choices (certainly in particular contexts) and plenty of high IQ people who make questionable choices.
- augustk 3y ago
  https://liamchingliu.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/intellectuals-vs-intelligent-people/ https://liamchingliu.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/intellectuals-...
ameister14 3y ago
Stupidity is not defined by self-harming actions and beliefs - not sure where you're getting that from. Stupidity is being presented with a problem and an associated set of information and being unable or less able than others are to find the solution. That's literally it.
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  Probably from law 3: https://principia-scientific.com/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity-according-to-cipolla/ https://principia-scientific.com/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-s... But it's an incomplete definition - Cipolla's definition is "someone who causes net harm to themselves and others" and is unrelated to IQ. It's a very influential essay.

mrangle 3y ago

But pronouncing that 700 people are bad at critical thinking is convenient when you disagree with them on desired outcome and yet can't hope to argue points.