Do you think my post implied that Hawkins said they were stupid for no reason at all? If so, can you suggest how to change the wording?
To my ears, if I hear someone say “Person X thinks Argument Y is stupid”, it’s very obvious that I could then go ask Person X why they think it’s stupid, and they would have some answer to that question.
So when I wrote “Jeff Hawkins thought the book’s arguments were all stupid”, I didn’t think I was implying that Jeff wasn’t paying attention, or that Jeff wasn’t thinking, or whatever. If I wanted to imply those things, I would have said “Jeff Hawkins ignored the book’s arguments” or “Jeff Hawkins unthinkingly dismissed the book’s arguments” or “Jeff Hawkins dismissed the book’s arguments without any justification” or something like that. I really meant no negative connotation. I describe myself as thinking that lots of things are stupid, and I don’t think of that as a self-deprecating kind of thing to say. Again, I’m open to changing the wording.
As it turns out, Jeff Hawkins has written extensively on why he thinks that AGI x-risk is not going to happen, and I in turn have written extensively (probably more than literally anyone else on earth) on why his arguments are wrong: See in particular
Of you course, Hawkins doesn’t just say they are stupid. It is Byrnes who is summarily dismissing Hawkins, in fact.
Do you think my post implied that Hawkins said they were stupid for no reason at all? If so, can you suggest how to change the wording?
To my ears, if I hear someone say “Person X thinks Argument Y is stupid”, it’s very obvious that I could then go ask Person X why they think it’s stupid, and they would have some answer to that question.
So when I wrote “Jeff Hawkins thought the book’s arguments were all stupid”, I didn’t think I was implying that Jeff wasn’t paying attention, or that Jeff wasn’t thinking, or whatever. If I wanted to imply those things, I would have said “Jeff Hawkins ignored the book’s arguments” or “Jeff Hawkins unthinkingly dismissed the book’s arguments” or “Jeff Hawkins dismissed the book’s arguments without any justification” or something like that. I really meant no negative connotation. I describe myself as thinking that lots of things are stupid, and I don’t think of that as a self-deprecating kind of thing to say. Again, I’m open to changing the wording.
As it turns out, Jeff Hawkins has written extensively on why he thinks that AGI x-risk is not going to happen, and I in turn have written extensively (probably more than literally anyone else on earth) on why his arguments are wrong: See in particular
Book Review: A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins
Section 3.6 here—“Response to Jeff Hawkins’s argument against AGI accident risk”
Me responding specifically to that video in a long argument in the forum run by Numenta (Jeff Hawkins’s company)