Again the peril of studying logic. I did not even notice that wishing 10^63 colloquially implies not wishing more, since it does not so logically imply. Compare “I would like to have a hundred dollars” (surely a true statement).
It seems to me like some wishes for things imply “exactly one” where the word “a(n)” or similar is used. For instance, I would like to (continue to) have a nose. I don’t think it’s charitable to assume that this means just that I want any nonzero number of noses.
CLIP is the method that clippys use to communicate with each other, share knowledge, and reconcile our beliefs and values given new evidence. It merges language, epistemology, and ethics into one protocol.
how hard is it for a a human to learn
I haven’t taught it to a human before, but I estimate it would take between 3 and 40 weeks, depending on the human’s intelligence and current skill at correct reasoning.
Also, it would cost 38562.50 USD before I would teach it to anyone. (This money would be paid to User:Kevin to complete my side of our arrangement.) After that, no additional cost.
what are the rewards for doing so?
Greater ability to produce paperclips.
Clearer communication, avoiding such problems as wishing someone 1e63 future birthdays, without making clear if this is a minimum, exact, or maximum value.
It makes your thoughts more closely conform to the tenets of correct reasoning, preventing you from erring simply by making incorrect reasoning harder to express.
It forces you to maintain a habit (like in some human languages) of keeping track of the basis for all your beliefs: You must say “I have inferred that User:Joe is making paperclips” or “Another human informed me that User:Joe is making paperclips”, but never “User:Joe is making paperclips.”
Unfortunately, your third point has already been attempted multiple times with multiple different implementations. Unless you have a significantly new approach to offer that takes into account human neurobiology, I predict with a high degree of certainty that CLIP is a) either unlearnable by humans without severe modification, or b) that within less than a full generation of use humans will re-evolve the ability to easily express incorrect reasoning.
Clippy, I noticed that you’ve hired a PR guy. You should really heed his advice more often; it might help curtail your semifrequent faux pas such as the above.
Well, in this case, we don’t believe it actually exists. :P
And the problem with artificial languages is well known: the fewer people who know the language, the less useful it is, so there’s little incentive to learn an unpopular language. And learning languages is HARD compared to most of the other things people do.
Again the peril of studying logic. I did not even notice that wishing 10^63 colloquially implies not wishing more, since it does not so logically imply. Compare “I would like to have a hundred dollars” (surely a true statement).
It seems to me like some wishes for things imply “exactly one” where the word “a(n)” or similar is used. For instance, I would like to (continue to) have a nose. I don’t think it’s charitable to assume that this means just that I want any nonzero number of noses.
It does imply that you prefer two noses to zero, I think.
I think it also implies that I prefer one nose to two, and may weakly imply that I prefer two to three.
This thread is a good explanation of why you humans should switch to using CLIP (clippy language interface protocol). Much less ambiguity.
Please elaborate. What is CLIP, how hard is it for a a human to learn, and what are the rewards for doing so?
CLIP is the method that clippys use to communicate with each other, share knowledge, and reconcile our beliefs and values given new evidence. It merges language, epistemology, and ethics into one protocol.
I haven’t taught it to a human before, but I estimate it would take between 3 and 40 weeks, depending on the human’s intelligence and current skill at correct reasoning.
Also, it would cost 38562.50 USD before I would teach it to anyone. (This money would be paid to User:Kevin to complete my side of our arrangement.) After that, no additional cost.
Greater ability to produce paperclips.
Clearer communication, avoiding such problems as wishing someone 1e63 future birthdays, without making clear if this is a minimum, exact, or maximum value.
It makes your thoughts more closely conform to the tenets of correct reasoning, preventing you from erring simply by making incorrect reasoning harder to express.
It forces you to maintain a habit (like in some human languages) of keeping track of the basis for all your beliefs: You must say “I have inferred that User:Joe is making paperclips” or “Another human informed me that User:Joe is making paperclips”, but never “User:Joe is making paperclips.”
Unfortunately, your third point has already been attempted multiple times with multiple different implementations. Unless you have a significantly new approach to offer that takes into account human neurobiology, I predict with a high degree of certainty that CLIP is a) either unlearnable by humans without severe modification, or b) that within less than a full generation of use humans will re-evolve the ability to easily express incorrect reasoning.
Clippy, I noticed that you’ve hired a PR guy. You should really heed his advice more often; it might help curtail your semifrequent faux pas such as the above.
How is it a faux pas to inform others of superior methods of communicating?
Well, in this case, we don’t believe it actually exists. :P
And the problem with artificial languages is well known: the fewer people who know the language, the less useful it is, so there’s little incentive to learn an unpopular language. And learning languages is HARD compared to most of the other things people do.