I wish people were more scared of the dangers that cant yet be measured, like the chance a very large gamma ray could hit Earth for a short time then be aimed somewhere else. How do we know major extinctions in the past werent related to unknown behaviors of spacetime from outside where we measure? Or maybe the “constants” in the wave equations of physics sometimes vary. Is it really a good deal to let individual businesses hold the pieces of this knowledge to themselves instead of putting all our knowledge together to figure out whats possible?
The map is not the territory, but most people are happy to take the lack of dangers on their map as evidence of the safety of the terrirtory, so they dont update their maps.
It’s nice to hear a quote from Wittgenstein. I hope we can get around to discussing the deeper meaning of this, which applies to all kinds of things… most especially, the process by which each kind of creature (bats, fish, homo sapiens, and potential embodied artifactual (n.1) minds (and also not embodied in the contemporaneously most often used sense of the term—Watson was not embodied in that sense) *constructs it’s own ontology) (or ought to, by virtuue of being embued with the right sort of architecture.)
That latter sense, and the incommensurability of competing ontologies in competing creatures (where ‘creature’ is defined defined as a hybrid, and N-tuple, of cultural legacy contructs, endemic evolutionarily bequeathed physiological sensorium, it’s individual autobiographical experience...), but not (in my view, in the theory I am developing) opaque to enlightened translatability—though the conceptual scaffolding for translaiton involves the nature of, purpose of, and boundaries, both logical and temporal of the “specious present”, the quantum zeno effect, and other considerations, so it is more suble than meets the eye)… is more of what Wittengensttein was thinking about, considering Kant’s answer to skepticism, and lots of other issues.
Your more straightforward point bears merit, however. Most of us have spend a good deal of our lives battling not issue opacity, as much as human opacity to new, expanded, revised, or unconventional ideas.
Note 1.: BY the way, I occasionally write ‘artifactual’ as opposed to ‘artificial’ because of the sense in which, as products of nature, everything we do—including building AIs—is, ipso facto, a product of nature, and hence, ‘artificial’ is an adjective we should be careful about.
I wish people were more scared of the dangers that cant yet be measured, like the chance a very large gamma ray could hit Earth for a short time then be aimed somewhere else. How do we know major extinctions in the past werent related to unknown behaviors of spacetime from outside where we measure? Or maybe the “constants” in the wave equations of physics sometimes vary. Is it really a good deal to let individual businesses hold the pieces of this knowledge to themselves instead of putting all our knowledge together to figure out whats possible?
Why?
The map is not the territory, but most people are happy to take the lack of dangers on their map as evidence of the safety of the terrirtory, so they dont update their maps.
It’s nice to hear a quote from Wittgenstein. I hope we can get around to discussing the deeper meaning of this, which applies to all kinds of things… most especially, the process by which each kind of creature (bats, fish, homo sapiens, and potential embodied artifactual (n.1) minds (and also not embodied in the contemporaneously most often used sense of the term—Watson was not embodied in that sense) *constructs it’s own ontology) (or ought to, by virtuue of being embued with the right sort of architecture.)
That latter sense, and the incommensurability of competing ontologies in competing creatures (where ‘creature’ is defined defined as a hybrid, and N-tuple, of cultural legacy contructs, endemic evolutionarily bequeathed physiological sensorium, it’s individual autobiographical experience...), but not (in my view, in the theory I am developing) opaque to enlightened translatability—though the conceptual scaffolding for translaiton involves the nature of, purpose of, and boundaries, both logical and temporal of the “specious present”, the quantum zeno effect, and other considerations, so it is more suble than meets the eye)… is more of what Wittengensttein was thinking about, considering Kant’s answer to skepticism, and lots of other issues.
Your more straightforward point bears merit, however. Most of us have spend a good deal of our lives battling not issue opacity, as much as human opacity to new, expanded, revised, or unconventional ideas.
Note 1.: BY the way, I occasionally write ‘artifactual’ as opposed to ‘artificial’ because of the sense in which, as products of nature, everything we do—including building AIs—is, ipso facto, a product of nature, and hence, ‘artificial’ is an adjective we should be careful about.
I believe they are mostly correct in that. What other evidence should they consider?
That’s a non sequitur. There are strong natural selection forces against this kind of behaviour.