In linkposts, often the content is quoted wholesale (beginning to end) or partially (First X paragraphs or so). Although the post starting with a video might have made these options more difficult than usual.
I didn’t know that – thanks for the feedback!
Should I edit my post to quote the referenced content?
David Chapman’s thoughts on AI might differ from yours.
At sufficient detail, everyone’s thoughts about anything (sufficiently complex) differ from everyone else’s. But I don’t think David Chapman and I have any fundamental disagreements about AI.
“AI have memory problems”
Ooooh! That’s a perfectly concise form of a criticism I’ve thought about neural network architectures for a long time. The networks certainly are a form of memory themselves, but not really a history, i.e. of distinct and relatively discrete events or entities. Our own minds certainly seem to have that kind of memory and it seems very hard for an arbitrary intelligent reasoner to NOT have something similar (if not exactly something like this).
The quoted text you included is a perfect example of this kind of thing too; thanks for including it.
Isn’t there evidence that human brains/minds have what is effectively a dedicated ‘causal reasoning’ unit/module? It probably also relies on the ‘thing memory’ unit(s)/module(s) too tho.
Perhaps the distinction is:
Rationality is what you should do.
Meta-rationality is what you should do in order to “make rationality work”.
While these two things can be combined under one umbrella, making definitions smaller:
Increases clarity (of discussion)
Makes it easier to talk about components
Makes it clear when all membership criterion for a category have been met.
Might help with teaching/retention
As I mentioned, or implied, in this post, I’m indifferent about the terminology. But I like all of your points and think they’re good reasons to make the distinction that Chapman does. I’m going to consider doing the same!
Isn’t there evidence that human brains/minds have what is effectively a dedicated ‘causal reasoning’ unit/module? It probably also relies on the ‘thing memory’ unit(s)/module(s) too tho.
I’m not an expert on neuroscience. I’m not sure how continuous those things are between being modular and integrated. (I have a suspicion they’re both.)
Should I edit my post to quote the referenced content?
It’s a particular style/format[1], using it isn’t required. There’s a couple styles around this that I’ve noticed:
1) A post which consists of a link, and maybe material on what it is. This is done by describing it, with an intended audience of people who haven’t read it. (The low-effort way of doing this is to copy the first few paragraphs.)
2) Writing a post with a (single) pre-requisite, which is linked to.
What makes the two different is that 1 is meant to be read after the linked post, while 2 is for reading before it [2].
I brought it up because I read your post, and then the linked post, and then I read your post again. 1 and 2 can be combined, but it wasn’t clear whether your post came before the link or after, and it wasn’t clearly split into two parts along those lines.
[1] I am not familiar with its origin.
[2] Except when 2 is a quote, and skipping to the link doesn’t miss anything. The discussion/comments on a post of either type may be indistinguishable, including discussions which require having read the linked post to understand. Sometimes a post which originally just consists of a link might get comments like “what’s the linked post about”.
I love this comment!
I didn’t know that – thanks for the feedback!
Should I edit my post to quote the referenced content?
At sufficient detail, everyone’s thoughts about anything (sufficiently complex) differ from everyone else’s. But I don’t think David Chapman and I have any fundamental disagreements about AI.
Ooooh! That’s a perfectly concise form of a criticism I’ve thought about neural network architectures for a long time. The networks certainly are a form of memory themselves, but not really a history, i.e. of distinct and relatively discrete events or entities. Our own minds certainly seem to have that kind of memory and it seems very hard for an arbitrary intelligent reasoner to NOT have something similar (if not exactly something like this).
The quoted text you included is a perfect example of this kind of thing too; thanks for including it.
Isn’t there evidence that human brains/minds have what is effectively a dedicated ‘causal reasoning’ unit/module? It probably also relies on the ‘thing memory’ unit(s)/module(s) too tho.
As I mentioned, or implied, in this post, I’m indifferent about the terminology. But I like all of your points and think they’re good reasons to make the distinction that Chapman does. I’m going to consider doing the same!
I’m not an expert on neuroscience. I’m not sure how continuous those things are between being modular and integrated. (I have a suspicion they’re both.)
It’s a particular style/format[1], using it isn’t required. There’s a couple styles around this that I’ve noticed:
1) A post which consists of a link, and maybe material on what it is. This is done by describing it, with an intended audience of people who haven’t read it. (The low-effort way of doing this is to copy the first few paragraphs.)
2) Writing a post with a (single) pre-requisite, which is linked to.
What makes the two different is that 1 is meant to be read after the linked post, while 2 is for reading before it [2].
I brought it up because I read your post, and then the linked post, and then I read your post again. 1 and 2 can be combined, but it wasn’t clear whether your post came before the link or after, and it wasn’t clearly split into two parts along those lines.
[1] I am not familiar with its origin.
[2] Except when 2 is a quote, and skipping to the link doesn’t miss anything. The discussion/comments on a post of either type may be indistinguishable, including discussions which require having read the linked post to understand. Sometimes a post which originally just consists of a link might get comments like “what’s the linked post about”.
Thanks!