3 ms·

You are aware of other intelligences he was referring to in his listicle then enlighten us. A pure distilled ideal form of intelligence will need a quality def

You are aware of other intelligences he was referring to in his listicle then enlighten us. A pure distilled ideal form of intelligence will need a quality definition though so as not to smuggle the "living being / human" prerequisites for it in through the back door. Here he offers very incomplete notions implying intelligence is: not only doing bruteforce search and guesswork. Should he become aware it is doing extra the assertion presumably expands to include not only that too. All to preserve his bold but unfounded claim in the title. To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. Expertise is where you find it working best for you, btw I'm totally okay with threats from experts to down tools to show their disdain for AI but it won't happen in a meaningful sense because information leaks too well, it was just hard to organize pre-AI, walled-off needing to jump through courses/consulting/qualification/experience hoops and such. Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted.

mpalmer 2y ago
> To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. I do not agree because the statement is silly and wrong. You've made no real argument that anything is being forbidden. No one is proposing "forbidding" AI. Second, "forbidding imperfect knowledge acquisition" (a pretty tortured construction in the first place) is not the same thing as forbidding knowledge, because you can always get the knowledge elsewhere. It'll be more accurate too! > Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. This is basically gibberish, and it seems to me that you're happy to talk about expertise in the abstract, probably because giving concrete examples about what you mean would require actually defending your ideas! > Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted. You're omitting a lot, and hiding your lack of actual knowledge on the topic with confident pronouncements and over-flowery phrasing. Not unlike some generative models I know! You accuse OP of avoiding a definition for intelligence to serve his argument when it seems you're far more guilty of this.

mpalmer 2y ago

> To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. I do not agree because the statement is silly and wrong. You've made no real argument that anything is being forbidden. No one is proposing "forbidding" AI. Second, "forbidding imperfect knowledge acquisition" (a pretty tortured construction in the first place) is not the same thing as forbidding knowledge, because you can always get the knowledge elsewhere. It'll be more accurate too! > Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. This is basically gibberish, and it seems to me that you're happy to talk about expertise in the abstract, probably because giving concrete examples about what you mean would require actually defending your ideas! > Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted. You're omitting a lot, and hiding your lack of actual knowledge on the topic with confident pronouncements and over-flowery phrasing. Not unlike some generative models I know! You accuse OP of avoiding a definition for intelligence to serve his argument when it seems you're far more guilty of this.