I was responding to the sentence:
“If you look at the most interesting recent advances in philosophy, it seems that most of them were made by non-philosophers.”
..which does not mention “advances in philosophy useful to FAI”.
Do you disagree, or have a alternative definition?
None of them have been much discussed by phils. (except possibly Bostrom, the Diane Hsieh of LessWrongism).
Theory of computation is obviously used by the computational theory of mind as well as philosophy of language and of mathematics and logic. Decision theorists are commonly employed by philosophy departments and all current decision theories descend from vNM’s. AIT actually doesn’t seem to be much discussed by philosophers (a search found only a couple of references in the SEP, and even the entry on “simplicity” only gives a brief mention of it) which is a bit surprising. (Oh, there’s a more substantial discussion in the entry for “information”.)
I was responding to the sentence: “If you look at the most interesting recent advances in philosophy, it seems that most of them were made by non-philosophers.”
..which does not mention “advances in philosophy useful to FAI”.
None of them have been much discussed by phils. (except possibly Bostrom, the Diane Hsieh of LessWrongism).
Theory of computation is obviously used by the computational theory of mind as well as philosophy of language and of mathematics and logic. Decision theorists are commonly employed by philosophy departments and all current decision theories descend from vNM’s. AIT actually doesn’t seem to be much discussed by philosophers (a search found only a couple of references in the SEP, and even the entry on “simplicity” only gives a brief mention of it) which is a bit surprising. (Oh, there’s a more substantial discussion in the entry for “information”.)
Surely that is the other way round. Early computer theorists just wanted to solve mathematical problems mechanically.
What is your point? His day job was physicist.