I can agree that most of “science and other fields” came out of what was called “philosophy” if you go back far enough. It just seems that once you pull out all the “science and other fields” what is left has no use for solving practical problems—including AI. Like the pages and pages of debate I’ve seen here on Less Wrong about “philosophical” stuff like the nature of morality, or free will, or “zombies” with no consciousness. Obviously a lot of people feel that discussing these topics is worthwhile, but I just don’t see the use of it.
In continuing to plod through the older writings here, I’ve seen numerous passages from Eliezer that disparage philosophy’s usefulness, including these that I hit today:
Sorry—but philosophy, even the better grade of modern analytic philosophy, doesn’t seem to end up commensurate with what I need, except by accident or by extraordinary competence.
(http://lesswrong.com/lw/tg/against_modal_logics/)
and
I suggest that, like ethics, philosophy really is important, but it is only practiced effectively from within a science. Trying to do the philosophy of a frontier science, as a separate academic profession, is as much a mistake as trying to have separate ethicists. You end up with ethicists who speak mainly to other ethicists, and philosophers who speak mainly to other philosophers.
(http://lesswrong.com/lw/pg/where_philosophy_meets_science/ )
So I’m still baffled by the comment here that currently the main problems in FAI are philosophical. Is there a summary or chain of posts that spells out this change in position? Or will it just gradually emerge if I manage to read all the posts between those quotes from 2008, up to the quote from 2011? Or, is this just your opinion, not Eliezer’s?
Note the distinction between those things being done in the field of “Philosophy”, versus philosophy itself. Note that this:
philosophy really is important, but it is only practiced effectively from within a science
is an endorsement of philosophy itself, though the quote goes on to say that the way that much philosophy is done in academia is pretty useless. So I’m not seeing anything that should generate confusion. When Wei Dai said that the problems are philosophical, that does not entail that the problems should be solved by people with doctorates in Philosophy.
Or, is this just your opinion, not Eliezer’s?
While I sometimes imagine myself one of the world’s foremost experts on the writings of Eliezer, any non-quoted words are my own.
It just seems that once you pull out all the “science and other fields” what is left has no use for solving practical problems—including AI.
If you think that logic, ethics, applied ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of mind all have no use in AI, then I think you will find yourself in a minority.
I can agree that most of “science and other fields” came out of what was called “philosophy” if you go back far enough. It just seems that once you pull out all the “science and other fields” what is left has no use for solving practical problems—including AI. Like the pages and pages of debate I’ve seen here on Less Wrong about “philosophical” stuff like the nature of morality, or free will, or “zombies” with no consciousness. Obviously a lot of people feel that discussing these topics is worthwhile, but I just don’t see the use of it.
In continuing to plod through the older writings here, I’ve seen numerous passages from Eliezer that disparage philosophy’s usefulness, including these that I hit today:
and
So I’m still baffled by the comment here that currently the main problems in FAI are philosophical. Is there a summary or chain of posts that spells out this change in position? Or will it just gradually emerge if I manage to read all the posts between those quotes from 2008, up to the quote from 2011? Or, is this just your opinion, not Eliezer’s?
Note the distinction between those things being done in the field of “Philosophy”, versus philosophy itself. Note that this:
is an endorsement of philosophy itself, though the quote goes on to say that the way that much philosophy is done in academia is pretty useless. So I’m not seeing anything that should generate confusion. When Wei Dai said that the problems are philosophical, that does not entail that the problems should be solved by people with doctorates in Philosophy.
While I sometimes imagine myself one of the world’s foremost experts on the writings of Eliezer, any non-quoted words are my own.
If you think that logic, ethics, applied ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of mind all have no use in AI, then I think you will find yourself in a minority.