Robin Hanson, on the meta-topic of different approaches to answering the question, “what is the most likely route to greater-than-human intelligence, and how likely is it, and when?”.
I disagree. I think the real benefit in something like this is to is hear a discussion with a community outsider. A discussion between Elizer and Robin would be interesting but wouldn’t offer anything substantially different than existing LW/OB content.
Said question is essentially the topic of their disagreement on OB late last year, is it not? I recall that discussion reaching no satisfactory conclusion. My impression from that was of a great deal of talking past one another, not so much a matter of of approach to the question as subtly differing implicit assumptions.
Would the meta-topic be likely to shed more light on the subject, or would it result in the same stalemate?
I suspect there are more interesting and fruitful topics that the two could discuss.
I think i might go well—at least it would seem to wrap things up in a personable way. And it is harder to talk past one another in person—the other person can interrupt.
It is much easier to talk past each other and generally avoid the central points of disagreement when communication is written rather than oral and in essay style rather than conversational style.
Robin Hanson, on the meta-topic of different approaches to answering the question, “what is the most likely route to greater-than-human intelligence, and how likely is it, and when?”.
I disagree. I think the real benefit in something like this is to is hear a discussion with a community outsider. A discussion between Elizer and Robin would be interesting but wouldn’t offer anything substantially different than existing LW/OB content.
Said question is essentially the topic of their disagreement on OB late last year, is it not? I recall that discussion reaching no satisfactory conclusion. My impression from that was of a great deal of talking past one another, not so much a matter of of approach to the question as subtly differing implicit assumptions.
Would the meta-topic be likely to shed more light on the subject, or would it result in the same stalemate?
I suspect there are more interesting and fruitful topics that the two could discuss.
I think i might go well—at least it would seem to wrap things up in a personable way. And it is harder to talk past one another in person—the other person can interrupt.
It is much easier to talk past each other and generally avoid the central points of disagreement when communication is written rather than oral and in essay style rather than conversational style.