3 ms·

Replacing "judgement" with "truth" is a dangerous bending of what was said. To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no id

by mdp2021 1mo ago

Replacing "judgement" with "truth" is a dangerous bending of what was said. To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no idea what you mean with «ours». Your interpretation in «more "teachers", eg AGI, [would] "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_» is utterly distorted. You are arbitrarily conflating two different ideas: the instanced Intelligence in "properly implemented Intelligence would authoritatively call BS what is BS" and the general Intelligence that makes people grow when exposed to proper intellectuals. > if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk Yes, assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment. > external thing External things do absolutely influence the internal thing. > set everyone right I have no idea what made you understand that. Again: you are discussing your own guesses triggered by what I wrote. You said that people are in aggregate emoters (and would deal with AGI with that tint), and I replied with a grin that if AGI will be achieved it will not use the tints of emoters. You said that people will remain emoters, and I countered that availability of virtue can reduce vice. Look: maybe a reflection over the «respond to the strongest plausible interpretation» in the guidelines will help you restore the understanding of what you read?

b112 1mo ago
Maybe, as an alternative to your last statement, instead you should consider how absurd your claims are. And pretending that it is wrong for me to make assessments of the outcome, when your position is also based on assessments of an outcome, is a very unmaintainable position to hold. How about you simply discuss the meat of it, instead of gnawing at the bone? How about, instead of complaining that my assessed outcome, is different than your assessed outcome, with statements akin to "but.. but you keep seeing a different outcome than I do, from my postulated positions!", you just instead discuss those positions? And my position was, that humans will never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth. I cited an exception to the rule, religion, where people believe in magical, invisible sky beings. It should be noted that religion provides one way transfer of knowledge, dogma, but no contact with that diety. This mode of message delivery diefies, and AGI use you describe will not meet this goal. It should also be noted that religious wars, sects, etc happen too. One primary was the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans. You have merely waved all of this away, attacking not the arguments I've made, but either how I made them, or exuding affront at their source, eg "but I didn't say that!" Yet the outcome of the path you seek, is not gatekept by the steps you start with, nor the vision you see before you. Instead, it is gatekept by human behaviour. And my point is you're viewing that behaviour wrong. Elon Musk is an incredibly intelligent, capable technological mover. He is incredibly effective at driving change and development. Then he waded into non-tech, non-engineer human behaviour, eg politics of the uneducated masses, thinking "managing this human stuff will be easy" Was he right? Or did he he fall flat on his face, misunderstanding how emoting humans react? Behave? Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base.
- mdp2021 1mo ago
  > discuss the meat of it I have no relevance to defending positions that I do not hold. You seem to have stepped from the analytical to the synthetic, and construed ideas that I have never proposed. You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.) > humans [] never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth Actually some humans recognize some sources as more reliable and worth listening to than other sources. > the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans So? Yes, the thing was noted, and reiterated in this very exchange: «populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there». Given that I know, link that statement to actual positions of mine. > Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base Proper education dries up that swamp and the bestial habit to sink in it. If we achieved AGI, that would become a facilitator in education. But look - since it is not my job to plan structural societal AGI implementation for the education of the masses, I am not obliged to define the details on how to circumvent the tendency of emoters around and against proper use of resources... Surely details get more complex in systemic planning - but I do not have that planning in my agenda.
  - b112 1mo ago
    Yet you are absolutely suggesting what I am discussing, as the outcome of your suggestion, and the only way your suggestion can actually work, is via the means and mechanisms I am discussing. Case in point, one of the mechanisms you believe will make it easy for emoters to somehow be educated, is simply by using the very mechanism they will refuse to use. You stipulate that AGI will help educate people, the end result to listen and to trust AGI. Through this whole conversation, I have said over and over that there are currently endless sources of reliable information. In fact, with no discernible change to society itself for thousands of years, we have actually enabled the printing press, cable TV, the internet, yet nothing significant has changed. When I mentioned how two intelligent beings, two intelligent AGIs, may not agree upon something, and what does that mean, you completely ignored this point in any substantive way. I appreciate that you think you're discussing this, but in truth what I see is you have a fixed idea in your mind, and you're not even willing to truly discuss it. Instead you like to just wave your hands, and make my points magically disappear. I don't think there's a lot of value in this back and forth going further. I'm sort of repeating myself, and I'm willing to bet you think you are too.

by mdp2021 1mo ago

b112 1mo ago

Maybe, as an alternative to your last statement, instead you should consider how absurd your claims are. And pretending that it is wrong for me to make assessments of the outcome, when your position is also based on assessments of an outcome, is a very unmaintainable position to hold. How about you simply discuss the meat of it, instead of gnawing at the bone? How about, instead of complaining that my assessed outcome, is different than your assessed outcome, with statements akin to "but.. but you keep seeing a different outcome than I do, from my postulated positions!", you just instead discuss those positions? And my position was, that humans will never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth. I cited an exception to the rule, religion, where people believe in magical, invisible sky beings. It should be noted that religion provides one way transfer of knowledge, dogma, but no contact with that diety. This mode of message delivery diefies, and AGI use you describe will not meet this goal. It should also be noted that religious wars, sects, etc happen too. One primary was the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans. You have merely waved all of this away, attacking not the arguments I've made, but either how I made them, or exuding affront at their source, eg "but I didn't say that!" Yet the outcome of the path you seek, is not gatekept by the steps you start with, nor the vision you see before you. Instead, it is gatekept by human behaviour. And my point is you're viewing that behaviour wrong. Elon Musk is an incredibly intelligent, capable technological mover. He is incredibly effective at driving change and development. Then he waded into non-tech, non-engineer human behaviour, eg politics of the uneducated masses, thinking "managing this human stuff will be easy" Was he right? Or did he he fall flat on his face, misunderstanding how emoting humans react? Behave? Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base.

mdp2021 1mo ago
> discuss the meat of it I have no relevance to defending positions that I do not hold. You seem to have stepped from the analytical to the synthetic, and construed ideas that I have never proposed. You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.) > humans [] never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth Actually some humans recognize some sources as more reliable and worth listening to than other sources. > the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans So? Yes, the thing was noted, and reiterated in this very exchange: «populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there». Given that I know, link that statement to actual positions of mine. > Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base Proper education dries up that swamp and the bestial habit to sink in it. If we achieved AGI, that would become a facilitator in education. But look - since it is not my job to plan structural societal AGI implementation for the education of the masses, I am not obliged to define the details on how to circumvent the tendency of emoters around and against proper use of resources... Surely details get more complex in systemic planning - but I do not have that planning in my agenda.
- b112 1mo ago
  Yet you are absolutely suggesting what I am discussing, as the outcome of your suggestion, and the only way your suggestion can actually work, is via the means and mechanisms I am discussing. Case in point, one of the mechanisms you believe will make it easy for emoters to somehow be educated, is simply by using the very mechanism they will refuse to use. You stipulate that AGI will help educate people, the end result to listen and to trust AGI. Through this whole conversation, I have said over and over that there are currently endless sources of reliable information. In fact, with no discernible change to society itself for thousands of years, we have actually enabled the printing press, cable TV, the internet, yet nothing significant has changed. When I mentioned how two intelligent beings, two intelligent AGIs, may not agree upon something, and what does that mean, you completely ignored this point in any substantive way. I appreciate that you think you're discussing this, but in truth what I see is you have a fixed idea in your mind, and you're not even willing to truly discuss it. Instead you like to just wave your hands, and make my points magically disappear. I don't think there's a lot of value in this back and forth going further. I'm sort of repeating myself, and I'm willing to bet you think you are too.