you say “desperately and monomaniacally” (an analogy between human psychology and an aspect of AI),
“consider two people who are fanatical about diamonds…” (ditto),
“consider a superintelligent sociopath who only cares about making toasters…” (an analogy between human personality disorders and an aspect of AI),
“mother … child” (an analogy between human parent-child relationships and an aspect of AI). Right?
(…and many more…)
I’m guessing you’ll say “yeah but I was making very specific points! That’s very different from someone who just says ‘AI is like aliens in every respect, end of story’”. And I agree!
…But the implication is: if someone is saying “AI is like aliens” in the context of making a very specific point, we should likewise all agree that that’s fine, or more precisely, their argument might or might not be a good argument, but if it’s a bad argument, it’s not a bad argument because it involves an analogy to aliens, per se.
I can give non-analogical explanations of every single case, written in pseudocode or something similarly abstract. Those are mostly communication conveniences, though I agree they shade in connotations from human life, which is indeed a cost. Maybe I should say—I rarely use analogies as load-bearing arguments instead of just shorthand? I rarely use analogies without justifying why they share common mechanisms with the technical subject bieng discussed?
Here’s a post you wrote. I claim that it’s full of analogies. :)
E.g.
you say “desperately and monomaniacally” (an analogy between human psychology and an aspect of AI),
“consider two people who are fanatical about diamonds…” (ditto),
“consider a superintelligent sociopath who only cares about making toasters…” (an analogy between human personality disorders and an aspect of AI),
“mother … child” (an analogy between human parent-child relationships and an aspect of AI). Right?
(…and many more…)
I’m guessing you’ll say “yeah but I was making very specific points! That’s very different from someone who just says ‘AI is like aliens in every respect, end of story’”. And I agree!
…But the implication is: if someone is saying “AI is like aliens” in the context of making a very specific point, we should likewise all agree that that’s fine, or more precisely, their argument might or might not be a good argument, but if it’s a bad argument, it’s not a bad argument because it involves an analogy to aliens, per se.
I can give non-analogical explanations of every single case, written in pseudocode or something similarly abstract. Those are mostly communication conveniences, though I agree they shade in connotations from human life, which is indeed a cost. Maybe I should say—I rarely use analogies as load-bearing arguments instead of just shorthand? I rarely use analogies without justifying why they share common mechanisms with the technical subject bieng discussed?
This is The Way :)