World_May_Wobble t1_j57owtb wrote
Reply to comment by LoquaciousAntipodean in The 'alignment problem' is fundamentally an issue of human nature, not AI engineering. by LoquaciousAntipodean
That was a very butthurt response.
>It's not my fault you don't understand what I mean; 'storyteller' is not a complex word.
I think it actually is, because there's no context given. How does a storytelling AI differ from what's being built now? What is a story in this context? How do you instantiate storytelling in code? It has nothing to do with reading comprehension; there are a lot of ambiguities you've left open in favor of rambling about Descartes.
LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j57po8q wrote
Project your insecurities at me as much as you like; I'm a cynic, your mind tricks don't work on me.
You know damn well what a story is, get out of 'programmer brain' for five seconds and try actually thinking a little bit.
Get some Terry Pratchett up your imagination hole, for goodness' sake. You have all the charisma of a dropped icecream, buddy.
World_May_Wobble t1_j57qkzx wrote
Invested readers will note that he didn't provide any concrete explanations here either.
LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j58i2up wrote
Oh, so you want to be Captain Concrete now? I was just ranting my head off about how 'absolute truth' is a load of nonsense, and look, here you are demanding it anyway.
I'm not interested in long lists of tedious references, Jeepeterson debate-bro style. What is regurgitating a bunch of secondhand ideas supposed to prove, anyway?
I'm over here trying to explain to you why Cartesian logic is a load of crap, and yet here you are, demanding Cartesian style explanations of everything.
Really not being very attentive or thoughtful today, are we, 'bro'? You're so smug it's disgusting.
drumnation t1_j58kf2d wrote
I appreciate your theories here but not all the insults and ad hominem attacks you keep lobbing. I notice those conversing with you don’t seem to throw them back yet you continue to do so in each reply. Please have some humility and respect while discussing this fascinating topic. It just makes me doubt your arguments since it seems you need to insult others to get your point across. Please start by not flaming me for pointing this out.
LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j58owi9 wrote
Hey, I wasn't adressing any remarks to you, or to 'everybody here', I wasn't 'lobbing' anything, I was merely attempting to mirror disrespect back upon the disrespectful. If you're trying to gaslight me, it ain't gonna work, mate.
Asking for 'humility' and 'respect' is for funeral services, not debates. I am not intentionally insulting anyone, I am attempting to insult ideas, ideas which I regard as silly, like "I think therefore I am".
If you regard loquacious verbosity as 'flaming' then I am very sorry to have made such a bad impression. This is simply the way that I prefer to communicate, I'm sorry to come across like a firehose of bile, I just love throwing words around.
Thankyou sincerely for your thoughtful and considerate comment, I appreciate it deeply ❤️
World_May_Wobble t1_j58r1hr wrote
>... 'absolute truth' is a load of nonsense ...
Is that absolutely true, "bro"?
If we can put aside our mutual lack of respect for one another, I'm genuinely, intellectually curious. How do you expect people to be moved to your way of thinking without "cartesian style explanations"?
Do you envision that people will just feel the weakness of "cartesian-thinking"? If that's the case, shouldn't you at least be making more appeals to emotion? You categorically refuse to justify your beliefs, so what is the incentive for someone to entertain them?
Again, sincere question.
LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j591y9m wrote
I don't have to 'justify' anything, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm raising questions, not peddling answers. I'm trying to be a philosopher about AI, not a preist.
I don't think evangelism will get the AI community very far. I think all the zero-sum, worn out old capitalist logic about 'incentivising' this, or 'monetizing' that, or 'justifying' the other thing, doesn't actually speak very deeply to the human pysche at all. It's all shallow, superficial, survival/greed based mumbo jumbo; real art, real creativity, never has to 'justify' itself, because its mere existence should speak for itself to an astute observer. That's the difference between 'meaningful' and 'meaningless'.
Economics is mostly the latter kind of self-justifying nonsense, and trying to base AI on its wooly, deluded 'logic' could kill us all. Psychology is the true root science of economics, because at least psychology is honest enough to admit that it's all about the human mind, and nothing to do with 'intrinsic forces of nature' or somesuch guff. Also, real science, like psychology, and unlike economics, doesn't try to 'justify' things, it just tries to explain them.
World_May_Wobble t1_j595e36 wrote
>I don't have to 'justify' anything, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm raising questions, not peddling answers. I'm trying to be a philosopher about AI, not a preist.
I've seen you put forward firm, prescriptive opinions about how people should think and about what's signal and noise. It's clear that you have a lot of opinions you'd like people to share. The title of your OP and almost every sentence since then has been a statement about what you believe to be true. I have not seen you ask any questions, however. So how is this different from what a priest does?
You say you're not trying to persuade anyone, then follow that with a two paragraph tangent arguing that AI needs to be handled under the paradigm of psychology and not economics.
You told me you weren't doing a thing while doing that very thing. This is gaslighting.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments