Before you bother to read any of what follows, I would be grateful if you would answer the following question: Have you, in fact, bozo-bitted me?
I haven’t yet, but if you’re going to persist in claiming that people with PhDs in philosophy are not even allowed the description ‘philosopher’, it’s tempting because why should I bother with people who abuse language and redefine words so abysmally?
So, allow me to propose a very simple alternative explanation (which is, in fact, the correct explanation, so far as I can tell by introspection): I said it because, having listed a bunch of things that weren’t Taube’s profession, it seemed appropriate to say what his profession actually was.
Which was pursuant to your belief that a mere librarian could have nothing to say about the issue, could not be any sort of authority or indicator of the times, and so does not belong in the list lukeprog presented. Yes, I’ve said all this before.
On the basis of this thread so far, I’m guessing that you still don’t believe me; so let me ask: Is there, in fact, anything I could possibly say or do that would convince you that I do not hold librarians in contempt?
The obvious reading of your concluding paragraph was obvious, before you started trying to defend it.
Angela Merkel is surely a physicist(1). She is not a physicist(2) now, although she used to be. Whether she’s a physicist(3) depends on what threshold we pick and on the extent to which she’s kept up her expertise. Similarly, Ian Bostridge is a historian(1), not a historian(2) so far as I know, and might or might not be a historian(3), and similarly for George Soros and philosophy...The relevant notion of “scientist”, “philosopher”, etc., here was never made explicit. I think I’ve had meaning 2 in mind sometimes and meaning 3 in mind sometimes.
Indeed. And I think it’s absurd to restrict usage of descriptions to the rarefied and elevated #2s (how many biologists get tenure?) and even more absurd to restrict it to the even more rarefied and elevated #3s.
(Merkel & Bostridge were both #2s at some point, but seem likely to never be #3s in those fields; whether we could consider Soros a #3 - because he claims his philosophical approach of reflexivity guides his philanthropy & investing and so his inarguably historic roles there are part and parcel of philosophy—is an interesting question, but getting a bit far afield.)
Taube was an expert in the indexing of documents, and an innovator in that field. In your opinion, does that amount to expertise in computer chess-playing comparable to, say, Fermi’s expertise in nuclear fission?
It gives him a great deal of expertise in organizing and searching data mechanically, which is relevant to AI; and inasmuch as chess-playing falls under AI… No, he didn’t write his thesis on chess-playing, but here again I would say it’s absurd to insist on such doctrinaire rigidity that no one can have respectable expertise without being the expert on a topic. (I would note in passing that Fermi’s laurea thesis was not on fission, but X-ray imaging; is that close enough? Well, probably, but then why is indexing and search so out of bounds? Search at Google involves a great deal of AI work, so clearly there is a real connection at some point in time...)
Taube held a PhD in philosophy; I think his thesis was on the history of philosophical thought about causality. Does that amount to, etc., etc.?
I’m afraid I have shocking news for you, many respected philosophers in AI may not have written their theses directly on AI: Dennett’s dissertation on consciousness was etc. etc. etc? Or consider John Searle’s early work on speech acts, was it etc etc etc? Keeping in mind the recent praise on LW for his work...
I simply don’t think that his opinions on computer chess-playing are the same kind of thing as Fermi’s opinions on nuclear fission, or Kelvin’s on the age of the earth.
All I can do is point to my previous summary and observe that Taube was one of the few contemporaries who grappled with the cybernetics issues, was trained philosophically, built a tech career on primitive computers etc etc. His observations are not chopped liver.
(I’m going to be brief, because I’m losing hope that you’re going to pay any attention to anything I say. I haven’t the least intention of bozo-bitting you globally because you have been consistently extremely impressive elsewhere, but in this particular discussion it seems that at least one of us—and I’m perfectly willing to consider that it may be me—is being sufficiently irrational that we’re doomed to produce more heat than light. More specifically, what it looks like to me is that you’re treating me as an enemy combatant who needs to be defeated, rather than a person who disagrees with you who needs to be either taught or learned from or both.)
[EDITED to add: well, it turns out I wasn’t so brief. But I tried.]
Which was pursuant to your belief that [...]
What’s annoying here is not so much your evident belief that I am lying through my teeth about my own opinion about librarians (why on earth would I even do that?) as your refusal even to acknowledge that your fantasy about that opinion is anything other than a mutually-agreed truth.
[...] Is there, in fact, anything I could possibly say or do that would convince you that I do not hold librarians in contempt?
The obvious reading of your concluding paragraph was obvious, before you started trying to defend it.
I’m sorry, was that meant to be an answer to the question I asked?
I wasn’t asking the question just to make a rhetorical point. Your behaviour in this thread suggests to me that as soon as you read the last sentence of what I wrote you leapt to a conclusion, got angry about it, and came out fighting, and that ever since you’ve refused even to consider the possibility that you leapt to the wrong conclusion.
It’s absured to insist on such doctrinaire rigidity that no one can have respectable expertise without being the expert on the topic.
It’s just as well that I’m not insisting on any such thing. So far as I know, there were other people around who were about as expert on nuclear physics as Fermi. I am not an expert on the history, so maybe that’s wrong, but I haven’t been assuming it’s wrong and when I say “comparable to Fermi’s expertise in nuclear fission” I don’t mean “expertise as of the world’s greatest expert”, I mean “expertise as of someone very expert in the field”. Because it seems to me that that’s the level of expertise that’s actually relevant to Eliezer’s original point and his more recent question.
many respected philosophers in AI may not have written their theses directly on AI
Of course. But what makes them respected philosophers in AI, and means that if they make pronouncements about AI that turn out to be very wrong then they might be examples of the phenomenon Eliezer was talking about, is not the fact that they are philosophy PhDs but their further body of work in the field that is related to AI.
(“Might be” rather than “are” because I have the impression that a sizeable number of people around here hold that philosophy is so terribly diseased a discipline that being a respected philosopher in AI is no ground for paying much attention to their opinions on AI.)
On the other hand, you’ve been arguing (I think) that Taube’s philosophical expertise made him an expert in the nascent field of AI, and the only evidence we have for his philosophical expertise is that he was a philosophy PhD. So it’s of some relevance what stuff this tells us he’d studied and thought about in depth. The stuff in question seems pretty interesting, but I don’t see how it could have shed much light on the prospects for computer chess-playing.
I was slightly wrong about the topic of (the book I think was derived from) Taube’s thesis, by the way; it wasn’t only a historical study of other philosophers’ thinking about causation but also “an attempt to solve the causal problem”, as the title puts it. Apparently his solution involved saying that causation and determination are incompatible and hence that causation implies freedom.
in this particular discussion it seems that at least one of us—and I’m perfectly willing to consider that it may be me—is being sufficiently irrational that we’re doomed to produce more heat than light.
Doing a perfect post on this topic would be hitting a dead horse right between the eyes at a thousand paces.
I haven’t yet, but if you’re going to persist in claiming that people with PhDs in philosophy are not even allowed the description ‘philosopher’, it’s tempting because why should I bother with people who abuse language and redefine words so abysmally?
Which was pursuant to your belief that a mere librarian could have nothing to say about the issue, could not be any sort of authority or indicator of the times, and so does not belong in the list lukeprog presented. Yes, I’ve said all this before.
The obvious reading of your concluding paragraph was obvious, before you started trying to defend it.
Indeed. And I think it’s absurd to restrict usage of descriptions to the rarefied and elevated #2s (how many biologists get tenure?) and even more absurd to restrict it to the even more rarefied and elevated #3s.
(Merkel & Bostridge were both #2s at some point, but seem likely to never be #3s in those fields; whether we could consider Soros a #3 - because he claims his philosophical approach of reflexivity guides his philanthropy & investing and so his inarguably historic roles there are part and parcel of philosophy—is an interesting question, but getting a bit far afield.)
It gives him a great deal of expertise in organizing and searching data mechanically, which is relevant to AI; and inasmuch as chess-playing falls under AI… No, he didn’t write his thesis on chess-playing, but here again I would say it’s absurd to insist on such doctrinaire rigidity that no one can have respectable expertise without being the expert on a topic. (I would note in passing that Fermi’s laurea thesis was not on fission, but X-ray imaging; is that close enough? Well, probably, but then why is indexing and search so out of bounds? Search at Google involves a great deal of AI work, so clearly there is a real connection at some point in time...)
I’m afraid I have shocking news for you, many respected philosophers in AI may not have written their theses directly on AI: Dennett’s dissertation on consciousness was etc. etc. etc? Or consider John Searle’s early work on speech acts, was it etc etc etc? Keeping in mind the recent praise on LW for his work...
All I can do is point to my previous summary and observe that Taube was one of the few contemporaries who grappled with the cybernetics issues, was trained philosophically, built a tech career on primitive computers etc etc. His observations are not chopped liver.
(I’m going to be brief, because I’m losing hope that you’re going to pay any attention to anything I say. I haven’t the least intention of bozo-bitting you globally because you have been consistently extremely impressive elsewhere, but in this particular discussion it seems that at least one of us—and I’m perfectly willing to consider that it may be me—is being sufficiently irrational that we’re doomed to produce more heat than light. More specifically, what it looks like to me is that you’re treating me as an enemy combatant who needs to be defeated, rather than a person who disagrees with you who needs to be either taught or learned from or both.)
[EDITED to add: well, it turns out I wasn’t so brief. But I tried.]
What’s annoying here is not so much your evident belief that I am lying through my teeth about my own opinion about librarians (why on earth would I even do that?) as your refusal even to acknowledge that your fantasy about that opinion is anything other than a mutually-agreed truth.
I’m sorry, was that meant to be an answer to the question I asked?
I wasn’t asking the question just to make a rhetorical point. Your behaviour in this thread suggests to me that as soon as you read the last sentence of what I wrote you leapt to a conclusion, got angry about it, and came out fighting, and that ever since you’ve refused even to consider the possibility that you leapt to the wrong conclusion.
It’s just as well that I’m not insisting on any such thing. So far as I know, there were other people around who were about as expert on nuclear physics as Fermi. I am not an expert on the history, so maybe that’s wrong, but I haven’t been assuming it’s wrong and when I say “comparable to Fermi’s expertise in nuclear fission” I don’t mean “expertise as of the world’s greatest expert”, I mean “expertise as of someone very expert in the field”. Because it seems to me that that’s the level of expertise that’s actually relevant to Eliezer’s original point and his more recent question.
Of course. But what makes them respected philosophers in AI, and means that if they make pronouncements about AI that turn out to be very wrong then they might be examples of the phenomenon Eliezer was talking about, is not the fact that they are philosophy PhDs but their further body of work in the field that is related to AI.
(“Might be” rather than “are” because I have the impression that a sizeable number of people around here hold that philosophy is so terribly diseased a discipline that being a respected philosopher in AI is no ground for paying much attention to their opinions on AI.)
On the other hand, you’ve been arguing (I think) that Taube’s philosophical expertise made him an expert in the nascent field of AI, and the only evidence we have for his philosophical expertise is that he was a philosophy PhD. So it’s of some relevance what stuff this tells us he’d studied and thought about in depth. The stuff in question seems pretty interesting, but I don’t see how it could have shed much light on the prospects for computer chess-playing.
I was slightly wrong about the topic of (the book I think was derived from) Taube’s thesis, by the way; it wasn’t only a historical study of other philosophers’ thinking about causation but also “an attempt to solve the causal problem”, as the title puts it. Apparently his solution involved saying that causation and determination are incompatible and hence that causation implies freedom.
Doing a perfect post on this topic would be hitting a dead horse right between the eyes at a thousand paces.
Doing X for a living is a lower bar than being tenured.