“imagined by the author as a combination of whatever a popular science site reported”
I’ve heard this argument from non-singulatarians from time to time. It bothers me due to the problem conservation of expected evidence. What is the blogger’s priors of taking an argument seriously if it seems as if the discussed about topic reminds him of something he’s heard about in a pop sci piece?
We all know that popular sci/tech reporting isn’t the greatest, but if you low confidence about SIAI-type AI and hearing it reminds you of some second hand pop reporting then discounting it because of the medium that exposed you to it is not an argument! Especially if you priors about the likelihood of pop sci reporting being accurate/useful is already low.
I don’t think that’s what is meant by the phrase. I think the author is asserting that it seems to them that some of the stuff put out by the website shows the general trends one expect if someone has learned about some idea from popularizations rather than the technical literature. If that is what the author is discussing then that is worrisome.
I think the author is asserting that it seems to them that some of the stuff put out by the website shows the general trends one expect if someone has learned about some idea from popularizations rather than the technical literature.
Yes that is exactly what I meant. That might sound a little harsh, but that was my impression.
Yes, but in at least one of those cases (both cases?) the piece was recommended to him by a higher-up in the SIAI. So associating them with the SIAI in the weak sense that they reflect views connected to the Institute is not unreasonable. If that was the intended meaning, it is just very poor phrasing.
ETA: And regardless of those issues, that’s a reflection of problems with the author, not necessarily a claim that defends the SIAI from the particular criticism in question.
“imagined by the author as a combination of whatever a popular science site reported”
I’ve heard this argument from non-singulatarians from time to time. It bothers me due to the problem conservation of expected evidence. What is the blogger’s priors of taking an argument seriously if it seems as if the discussed about topic reminds him of something he’s heard about in a pop sci piece?
We all know that popular sci/tech reporting isn’t the greatest, but if you low confidence about SIAI-type AI and hearing it reminds you of some second hand pop reporting then discounting it because of the medium that exposed you to it is not an argument! Especially if you priors about the likelihood of pop sci reporting being accurate/useful is already low.
I don’t think that’s what is meant by the phrase. I think the author is asserting that it seems to them that some of the stuff put out by the website shows the general trends one expect if someone has learned about some idea from popularizations rather than the technical literature. If that is what the author is discussing then that is worrisome.
Yes that is exactly what I meant. That might sound a little harsh, but that was my impression.
What might also be worrisome is that the two papers he seems to have read and associated with the SIAI are both not written by the SIAI.
Yes, but in at least one of those cases (both cases?) the piece was recommended to him by a higher-up in the SIAI. So associating them with the SIAI in the weak sense that they reflect views connected to the Institute is not unreasonable. If that was the intended meaning, it is just very poor phrasing.
ETA: And regardless of those issues, that’s a reflection of problems with the author, not necessarily a claim that defends the SIAI from the particular criticism in question.
I think that is not correct. You said:
However. the link was to:
http://singinst.org/upload/ai-resource-drives.pdf
...not...
http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/
The former is written by Carl Shulman—who seems to be being credited with 4 recent SIAI publications here.
its not clear to me, though this explanation seems plausible as well. Either way it’s not good.