None of Miles’s arguments resonates with me, basically because one counterargument could erase the pragmatic relevance of his points in one fell swoop:
The vast majority of expected value is on changing policies where the incentives are not aligned with ours. Cases where the world would be destroyed no matter what happened, or cases where something is providing a helping hand—such as the incentives he suggests—don’t change where our focus should be. Bostrom knows that, and focuses throughout on cases where more consequences derive from our actions. It’s ok to mention when a helping hand is available, but it doesn’t seem ok to argue that given a helping hand is available we should be less focused on the things that are separating us from a desirable future.
the over complications, the suppositions in all areas, the assumptions of certain outcomes, the complex logic of spaghetti minded mental convulsions to make a point. It all misses the essence of AI in whatever form. I ran into this at uni doing philslophy-logic and couldn’t be philosophical about the proposed propositions. I cheated to pass. It is the same—more erudite—here and the book in general. Creating more forests and hiding the trees. Still it’s a learning curve.
What did you find least persuasive in this week’s reading?
None of Miles’s arguments resonates with me, basically because one counterargument could erase the pragmatic relevance of his points in one fell swoop:
The vast majority of expected value is on changing policies where the incentives are not aligned with ours. Cases where the world would be destroyed no matter what happened, or cases where something is providing a helping hand—such as the incentives he suggests—don’t change where our focus should be. Bostrom knows that, and focuses throughout on cases where more consequences derive from our actions. It’s ok to mention when a helping hand is available, but it doesn’t seem ok to argue that given a helping hand is available we should be less focused on the things that are separating us from a desirable future.
the over complications, the suppositions in all areas, the assumptions of certain outcomes, the complex logic of spaghetti minded mental convulsions to make a point. It all misses the essence of AI in whatever form. I ran into this at uni doing philslophy-logic and couldn’t be philosophical about the proposed propositions. I cheated to pass. It is the same—more erudite—here and the book in general. Creating more forests and hiding the trees. Still it’s a learning curve.