I have previously taken some flack for being rather dismissive toward most of mainstream philosophy, and for treating AI as “real philosophy.” Eliezer has an even stronger position of this type, and has taken flack for it as well.
But as this article explains, this is actually pretty normal among AI folk. Here’s the abstract:
Most practitioners consider AI a technical disciple aimed at the production of “smarter” artifacts. Skepticism for the high-minded ambitions of classical philosophy runs high… AI arose in a self-conscious opposition to the methods of classical philosophy, and turned toward the sciences in order to find both a methodological canon and concrete tools for its analyses… [AI] saw itself as a “new philosophy” and indeed as an anti-philosophy that aimed at recovering the goals and scope of the millennia-old attempts toward an exhaustive account of man and his place in the cosmos, while replacing arm-chair speculations with a radically new kind of empirical approach. The claim will be illustrated and defended with reference to the development of the work of Herbert Simon.
Herbert Simon, the anti-Philosopher.
I have previously taken some flack for being rather dismissive toward most of mainstream philosophy, and for treating AI as “real philosophy.” Eliezer has an even stronger position of this type, and has taken flack for it as well.
But as this article explains, this is actually pretty normal among AI folk. Here’s the abstract: