For what it’s worth, my view is precisely the reverse: the Singularity is wishful thinking and trying to figure out Friendly AI today is like Roger Bacon trying to design a spam filter, but rationality is a worthwhile pursuit, the Sequences are some of the best writing on philosophy in the English language—I’d put them fully on a par with Hofstadter—and the rationality boot camp sounds like an interesting and potentially productive experiment.
I tend to agree with much of this. But the SIAI is in existence to develop a Friendly AI and has solicited donations on that basis. The people running it believe—or claim to—that this is the single most important task in the history of the universe. As such, it’s reasonable to examine if their actions match up to that.
...the Sequences are some of the best writing on philosophy in the English language...
Huh? I’d love to know what works of philosophy you are comparing a series of self-referencing blog posts to. The sequences aren’t actually philosophy, in my opinion, but a series of positions on philosophical issues. You guys are doctrinaires, you don’t take other positions seriously enough to argue against them. That’s why none of this constitutes “philosophy” in my opinion.
For what it’s worth, my view is precisely the reverse: the Singularity is wishful thinking and trying to figure out Friendly AI today is like Roger Bacon trying to design a spam filter, but rationality is a worthwhile pursuit, the Sequences are some of the best writing on philosophy in the English language—I’d put them fully on a par with Hofstadter—and the rationality boot camp sounds like an interesting and potentially productive experiment.
I tend to agree with much of this. But the SIAI is in existence to develop a Friendly AI and has solicited donations on that basis. The people running it believe—or claim to—that this is the single most important task in the history of the universe. As such, it’s reasonable to examine if their actions match up to that.
Huh? I’d love to know what works of philosophy you are comparing a series of self-referencing blog posts to. The sequences aren’t actually philosophy, in my opinion, but a series of positions on philosophical issues. You guys are doctrinaires, you don’t take other positions seriously enough to argue against them. That’s why none of this constitutes “philosophy” in my opinion.