5 ms·

I don't know why people allow others to proclaim they're 'ethicists' if they have no relevant philosophical education. There are whole fields of 'ethics' that a

I don't know why people allow others to proclaim they're 'ethicists' if they have no relevant philosophical education. There are whole fields of 'ethics' that are just PR departments trying to escape the now bad connotations of 'PR departments'.

District5524 1y ago
That reminds me of the new draft standard of CEN/CENELEC (EU std body) on "Competence requirements for professional AI ethicists" https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:22:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:2916257,25&cs=1827B89DA69577BF3631EE2B6070F207D https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:22:0::::FSP_... But by the time they'll adopt it, singularity will already have happened... For some reason, my instincts suggests there will be no MA in Philosophy needed.
tucnak 1y ago
It could be the case that Wittgensteinians have won completely, and if that is, indeed, the case—a great chunk of academic ethics should be considered hubris...
- nathias 1y ago
  This isn't the case, and the hubris is not limited to academia...
  - tucnak 1y ago
    I say, this is indeed the case in view of LLM lessons we have learnt along the way—most importantly, Wittgenstein had argued that in order to model language, you first need to model arbitrary discourses—this turned out to be the case (symbolic v. probabilistic) as LLM have shown to perform symbolic computation from learned representations, whilst the inverse has not been shown _ever_. Layman way of formulating this would be along the lines of "word definitions do not matter, application of words alone is what matters." IMHO, the language-game framework is so much more valuable, in terms of intuition, than anything outside of language philosophy, & pretty much all of linguistics in the first place: think Chomsky et al. Wittgensteinians won, and we should hope that philosophy department freaks eventually catch on to this reality.
    - nathias 1y ago
      I'm unfamiliar with any philosophers rejecting the discoveries of linguistics, but this has no bearing on ethics and its problems, nor is linguistics 'Wittgensteinian'.
      - tucnak 1y ago
        Your lack of philosophical education really shows! Linguistics does not "discover" anything; it's purely descriptive, and many philosophers of language in the Cambridge school have, indeed, rejected great bodies thereof. Do you need any pointers? I could oblige.
        nathias 1y ago
        your comment misses the point entirely.

District5524 1y ago

That reminds me of the new draft standard of CEN/CENELEC (EU std body) on "Competence requirements for professional AI ethicists" https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:22:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:2916257,25&cs=1827B89DA69577BF3631EE2B6070F207D https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:22:0::::FSP_... But by the time they'll adopt it, singularity will already have happened... For some reason, my instincts suggests there will be no MA in Philosophy needed.

tucnak 1y ago

It could be the case that Wittgensteinians have won completely, and if that is, indeed, the case—a great chunk of academic ethics should be considered hubris...

nathias 1y ago
This isn't the case, and the hubris is not limited to academia...
- tucnak 1y ago
  I say, this is indeed the case in view of LLM lessons we have learnt along the way—most importantly, Wittgenstein had argued that in order to model language, you first need to model arbitrary discourses—this turned out to be the case (symbolic v. probabilistic) as LLM have shown to perform symbolic computation from learned representations, whilst the inverse has not been shown _ever_. Layman way of formulating this would be along the lines of "word definitions do not matter, application of words alone is what matters." IMHO, the language-game framework is so much more valuable, in terms of intuition, than anything outside of language philosophy, & pretty much all of linguistics in the first place: think Chomsky et al. Wittgensteinians won, and we should hope that philosophy department freaks eventually catch on to this reality.
  - nathias 1y ago
    I'm unfamiliar with any philosophers rejecting the discoveries of linguistics, but this has no bearing on ethics and its problems, nor is linguistics 'Wittgensteinian'.
    - tucnak 1y ago
      Your lack of philosophical education really shows! Linguistics does not "discover" anything; it's purely descriptive, and many philosophers of language in the Cambridge school have, indeed, rejected great bodies thereof. Do you need any pointers? I could oblige.
      - nathias 1y ago
        your comment misses the point entirely.