Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sticky_symbols t1_j598v86 wrote

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

The AI isn't stupid in any way in those misalignment scenarios. Read "the AI understands and does not care".

I can't follow any positive claims you might have. You're saying lots of existing ideas are dumb, but I'm not following your arguments for ideas to replace them.

2

LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j59jxia wrote

I'm not trying to replace people's ideas with anything, per se. My opening post was not attempting to indoctrinate people into a new orthodoxy, merely to articulate my cricicisms of the current orthodoxy.

My whole point, I suppose, is that thinking in those terms in the first place is what keeps leading us to philosophical dead-ends.

And a mind that 'does not care' does not properly 'understand'; I would say that's misunderstanding the nature of what intelligence is, once again.

A blind creative force 'does not care', but an intelligent, 'understanding' decision 'cares' about all its discernible options, and leans on the precedents set by previous intelligent decisions to inform the next decision, in an accreting record of 'self awareness' that builds up into a personality over time.

1

sticky_symbols t1_j5ar3v0 wrote

For the most part, I'm just not understanding your argument beyond you just not liking the alignment problem framing. I think you're being a bit too loquacious :) for clear communication.

2

LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j5cluk4 wrote

That's quite likely, as Shakespeare said, 'brevity is the soul of wit'. Too many philosophers forget that insight, and water the currency of human expression into meaninglessness with their tedious metaphysical over-analyses.

I try to avoid it, I try to keep my prose 'punchy' and 'compelling' as much as I can (hence the agressive tone 😅 sorry about that), but it's hard when you're trying to drill down to the core of such ridiculously complex, nuanced concepts as 'what even is intelligence, anyway?'

Didn't name myself 'Loquacious' for nothing: I'm proactively prolix to the point of painful, punishing parody; stupidly sesquipedalian and stuffed with surplus sarcastic swill; vexatiously verbose in a vulgar, vitriolic, virtually villainous vision of vile vanity... 🤮

1

sticky_symbols t1_j5duh63 wrote

Ok, thanks for copping to it.

If you want more engagement, brevity is the soul of wit.

2

LoquaciousAntipodean OP t1_j5e1ec7 wrote

Yes, but engagement isn't necessarily my goal, and I think 111+ total comments isn't too bad going, personally. It's been quite a fun and informative discussion for me, I've enjoyed it hugely.

My broad ideological goal is to chop down ivory towers, and try to avoid building a new one for myself while I'm doing it. The 'karma points' on this OP are pretty rough, I know, but imo karma is just fluff anyway.

A view's a view, and if I've managed to make people think, even if the only thing some of them might think is that I'm an arsehole, at least I got them to think something 🤣

2

sticky_symbols t1_j5ftrlk wrote

You're right, it sounds like you're accomplishing what you want.

2