4 ms·

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 assessm

by b112 24d 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 23d 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 23d 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.
  - mdp2021 23d ago
    > nothing significant has changed Stating that the availability of intellectual products (which is not even what you have stated, you speak of «reliable information» and that is a different world already, but I am instead talking about the availability of "good reasoning") had little impact is not only difficult to prove in general, but clearly false given one's experience. We have had great Teachers, often through paper. The availability of Greatness makes a world of a difference. > how two intelligent beings ... may not agree ... you completely ignored this point I wrote «assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment». > you have a fixed idea in your mind It remains a condition in analytical discussion that such alleged idea is clearly expressed in a well constructed statement. I have in fact no idea what «fixed idea» you are attacking: this is what I reiterated many times. Repeat: «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.)»

by b112 24d ago

mdp2021 23d 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 23d 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.
- mdp2021 23d ago
  > nothing significant has changed Stating that the availability of intellectual products (which is not even what you have stated, you speak of «reliable information» and that is a different world already, but I am instead talking about the availability of "good reasoning") had little impact is not only difficult to prove in general, but clearly false given one's experience. We have had great Teachers, often through paper. The availability of Greatness makes a world of a difference. > how two intelligent beings ... may not agree ... you completely ignored this point I wrote «assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment». > you have a fixed idea in your mind It remains a condition in analytical discussion that such alleged idea is clearly expressed in a well constructed statement. I have in fact no idea what «fixed idea» you are attacking: this is what I reiterated many times. Repeat: «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.)»