This post is missing the part where the observations made support the conclusion to any significant degree.
Computer chips used to assist practically identical human brains to tweak computer chips is a superficial similarity to a potential foom at the very best.
It would become a significantly relevant ‘fooming’ anecdote when the new generation chips were themselves inventing new computer aided design software and techniques.
When that happens, I’ll be pointing to that as an example of the curve of capability, and FAI believers will be saying it will become significantly relevant when the chips are themselves inventing new ways to invent new computer aided design techniques. Etc.
When that happens, I’ll be pointing to that as an example of the curve of capability, and FAI believers will be saying it will become significantly relevant when the chips are themselves inventing new ways to invent new computer aided design techniques. Etc.
No, shortly after that happens all the FAI believers will be dead, with the rest of humanity. ;)
We’ll have about enough time to be the “O(h shit!)” in FOOM.
Clearly we aren’t going to agree on whether my question was a good one or a poor one, so agreeing to differ on that, what exactly would falsify your theory?
The grandparent answered that question quite clearly.
You make a prediction here of what would happen if this happened. I reply that that would actually happen instead. You falsify each of these theories by making this happen and observing the results.
I note that you are trying to play the ‘unfalsifiable card’ in two different places here and I am treating them differently because you question different predictions. I note this to avoid confusion if you meant them to be a single challenge to the overall position. So see other branch if you mean only to say “FOOM is unfalsifiable”.
Ah, then I’m asking whether “in situation X, the world will end” is your theory’s only prediction—since that’s the same question I’ve ended up asking in the other branch, let’s pursue it in the other branch.
This post is missing the part where the observations made support the conclusion to any significant degree.
Computer chips used to assist practically identical human brains to tweak computer chips is a superficial similarity to a potential foom at the very best.
Current computer aided design is already far from mere tweaking and getting further each generation.
It would become a significantly relevant ‘fooming’ anecdote when the new generation chips were themselves inventing new computer aided design software and techniques.
When that happens, I’ll be pointing to that as an example of the curve of capability, and FAI believers will be saying it will become significantly relevant when the chips are themselves inventing new ways to invent new computer aided design techniques. Etc.
No, shortly after that happens all the FAI believers will be dead, with the rest of humanity. ;)
We’ll have about enough time to be the “O(h shit!)” in FOOM.
So is there any way at all to falsify your theory?
Are you serious? You presented your own hypothesis for the outcome of the experiment before I gave mine! They are both obviously falsifiable.
I think, in no uncertain terms, that this rhetorical question was an extremely poor one.
Clearly we aren’t going to agree on whether my question was a good one or a poor one, so agreeing to differ on that, what exactly would falsify your theory?
The grandparent answered that question quite clearly.
You make a prediction here of what would happen if this happened. I reply that that would actually happen instead. You falsify each of these theories by making this happen and observing the results.
I note that you are trying to play the ‘unfalsifiable card’ in two different places here and I am treating them differently because you question different predictions. I note this to avoid confusion if you meant them to be a single challenge to the overall position. So see other branch if you mean only to say “FOOM is unfalsifiable”.
Ah, then I’m asking whether “in situation X, the world will end” is your theory’s only prediction—since that’s the same question I’ve ended up asking in the other branch, let’s pursue it in the other branch.