If the results are communicated with perfect clarity, but the recipient is insufficiently moved by the evidence—for example because it cannot be presented in a form that feels real enough to emotionally justify an extreme response which is logically justified—then the AI must manipulate us to bring the emotional justification in line with the logical one. This isn’t actually extreme; things as simple as altering the format data is presented in, while remaining perfectly truthful, are still manipulation. Even presenting conclusions as a powerpoint rather than plain text, if the AI determines there will be a different response (which there will be), necessarily qualifies.
In general, someone who can reliably predict your actions based on its responses cannot help but manipulate you; the mere fact of providing you with information will influence your actions in a known way, and therefore is manipulation.
Your sentence structure is: if {condition} then {subject} MUST {verb} in order to {purpose}. Here “must” carries the meaning of necessity and lack of choice.
No, ‘must’ here is acting as a logical conditional; it could be rephrased as ‘if {condition} and {subject} does not {verb}, then {purpose} will not occur’ without changing the denotation or even connotation. This isn’t a rare structure, and is the usual interpretation of ‘must’ in sentences of this kind. Leaving off the {purpose} would change the dominant parsing to the imperative sense of must.
It’s curious that we parse your sentence differently. To me your original sentence unambiguously contains “the imperative sense of must” and your rephrasing is very different connotationally.
Let’s try it:
“If the results are communicated with perfect clarity, but the recipient is insufficiently moved by the evidence … and the AI does not manipulate us then the emotional justification will not be in line with the logical one.”
Yep, sounds completely different to my ear and conveys a different meaning.
If the results are communicated with perfect clarity, but the recipient is insufficiently moved by the evidence—for example because it cannot be presented in a form that feels real enough to emotionally justify an extreme response which is logically justified—then the AI must manipulate us to bring the emotional justification in line with the logical one. This isn’t actually extreme; things as simple as altering the format data is presented in, while remaining perfectly truthful, are still manipulation. Even presenting conclusions as a powerpoint rather than plain text, if the AI determines there will be a different response (which there will be), necessarily qualifies.
In general, someone who can reliably predict your actions based on its responses cannot help but manipulate you; the mere fact of providing you with information will influence your actions in a known way, and therefore is manipulation.
That’s an interesting “must”.
You’re misquoting me.
That’s an interesting “must”.
This is a commonly-used grammatical structure in which ‘must’ acts as a conditional. What’s your problem?
Conditional?
Your sentence structure is: if {condition} then {subject} MUST {verb} in order to {purpose}. Here “must” carries the meaning of necessity and lack of choice.
No, ‘must’ here is acting as a logical conditional; it could be rephrased as ‘if {condition} and {subject} does not {verb}, then {purpose} will not occur’ without changing the denotation or even connotation. This isn’t a rare structure, and is the usual interpretation of ‘must’ in sentences of this kind. Leaving off the {purpose} would change the dominant parsing to the imperative sense of must.
It’s curious that we parse your sentence differently. To me your original sentence unambiguously contains “the imperative sense of must” and your rephrasing is very different connotationally.
Let’s try it:
“If the results are communicated with perfect clarity, but the recipient is insufficiently moved by the evidence … and the AI does not manipulate us then the emotional justification will not be in line with the logical one.”
Yep, sounds completely different to my ear and conveys a different meaning.