World_May_Wobble t1_j58r1hr wrote on January 21, 2023 at 4:56 AM

Reply to comment by LoquaciousAntipodean in The 'alignment problem' is fundamentally an issue of human nature, not AI engineering. by LoquaciousAntipodean

>... '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 on January 21, 2023 at 6:55 AM

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 on January 21, 2023 at 7:39 AM

>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.