2 ms·
> I think we'll agree it's intelligent. If there's one thing I've found never came true for me, it's almost any sentence of substantive opinion about "philosop
by ggm 1y ago
> I think we'll agree it's intelligent.
If there's one thing I've found never came true for me, it's almost any sentence of substantive opinion about "philosophy" which starts with "I think we'll agree"
And I do think this AI/AGI question is a philosophy question.
I don't know if you'll agree with that.
Whilst your analogy has strong elements of "consensus not required" I am less sure that applies right now, to what we think about AI/AGI. I think consensus is pretty .. important, and also, absent.
- peterashford 1y agoAs a person with a degree in Philosophy, I'm going to disagree with you. Discussions about meaning often rely a great deal on what people would usually expect words to mean. I do think issues of AI/AGI are often Philosophical in nature and I was not claiming that consensus is not required. What I'm arguing against is the requirement for rigorous definitions for words that exist in natural language. Language is messy and often ambiguous - especially around AI. If we want to have rigorous terms to discuss the state of the art - which I believe we do - then we should define terms for that purpose. i.e: AI needs it's own jargon.