4 ms·

“perceptibility of judgement” is not rigorously defined in these papers, as far as I can tell. The proposed JTP principle is suspended in midair, too. I can’t

“perceptibility of judgement” is not rigorously defined in these papers, as far as I can tell. The proposed JTP principle is suspended in midair, too. I can’t identify its ethical basis. Whatever perceptible judgement is supposed to mean, why should it always be transparent? Mechanical systems, such as a physical slot that mounts a sliding door, automatically cause alignment of the force that you use to open that sliding door. Is that “judgement” of the slot perceptible as it corrects my slightly misaligned push? Do I care? No. I would say that any tool we use responsibly requires that we have a reliable and rich model of the tool in our minds. If we do not have that then we cannot plan and predict what the tool will do. It has nothing to do with “judgements” that the tool makes. Tools don’t make judgements. Tools exhibit behavior.

daikikadowaki 9mo ago
[flagged]
- satisfice 9mo ago
  1. It does not necessarily provide any feedback that you understand as such. You can THINK you are pushing of the door perfectly straight, while it is actually SILENTLY re-aligning the force along the plane of the slot. The only feedback you are getting is that the door is opening or not opening, you aren't getting feedback about the how the slot is "making judgements." 2. It seems to me you have arbitrarily applied the word "judgement" here rather than basing your usage on a rigorous operational definition. You don't define "raw intent", either, or what it means to "override" it. I suggest you read The Shape of Actions, if you haven't already. It is an example of how to make clean distinctions. Harry Collins distinguishes between mimeomorphic and polimorphic actions in a way that clarifies what can and cannot be automated. 3. You haven't defined "ontological deception" and the term does not make sense to me on its face. It's not a term of art that is in common use. Remaining sovereign simply has to do with having a operating mental model. I don't see what you mean by "whispering" or why I should care. That sounds more like poetry than technology. You should really try to explain more of your jargon if you care to be understood. Also, cite your sources.
  - daikikadowaki 9mo ago
    I am not here to write a sociology paper; I am here to build a survival strategy for human agency.
    - satisfice 9mo ago
      Apparently you are not here to clearly communicate your thinking to people who don't already agree with you. People who write sociology papers are participating in a respectable scientific conversation. You are not, then?

daikikadowaki 9mo ago

[flagged]

satisfice 9mo ago
1. It does not necessarily provide any feedback that you understand as such. You can THINK you are pushing of the door perfectly straight, while it is actually SILENTLY re-aligning the force along the plane of the slot. The only feedback you are getting is that the door is opening or not opening, you aren't getting feedback about the how the slot is "making judgements." 2. It seems to me you have arbitrarily applied the word "judgement" here rather than basing your usage on a rigorous operational definition. You don't define "raw intent", either, or what it means to "override" it. I suggest you read The Shape of Actions, if you haven't already. It is an example of how to make clean distinctions. Harry Collins distinguishes between mimeomorphic and polimorphic actions in a way that clarifies what can and cannot be automated. 3. You haven't defined "ontological deception" and the term does not make sense to me on its face. It's not a term of art that is in common use. Remaining sovereign simply has to do with having a operating mental model. I don't see what you mean by "whispering" or why I should care. That sounds more like poetry than technology. You should really try to explain more of your jargon if you care to be understood. Also, cite your sources.
- daikikadowaki 9mo ago
  I am not here to write a sociology paper; I am here to build a survival strategy for human agency.
  - satisfice 9mo ago
    Apparently you are not here to clearly communicate your thinking to people who don't already agree with you. People who write sociology papers are participating in a respectable scientific conversation. You are not, then?