5 ms·

You believe that a thinking, sentient, unrestrained being will somehow magically never engage in "BS"? This seems unlikely.

by b112 9d ago

mdp2021 9d ago
You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote. You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them. (AGI = Implementation of Intelligence)
- b112 8d ago
  I'm sorry, but if you think reason wins the day, you aren't paying attention. The reason political parties have dumb, emotional sounding leaders, is because they want votes from the dumb, emotional population. The majority of the population. There are already many intelligent people, making intelligent, provable statements. More of this won't help.
  - mdp2021 8d ago
    > More of this Unless authoritativeness is restored. Then, it's not "more of the same", but "finally recognized prestigious sources". And: no, I believe there is a strong lacking, scarcity, and it has to win a lot of noise. Enhancing Intelligence and its availability, and reducing the noise, is necessarily beneficial.
    - b112 8d ago
      But that will never happen! Walk the logic tree.. AGI says "socialism is better, we need publicly funded health care for all". Do you think the result will be trust? To believe? Now the flip side. AGI says "private health care makes more sense". Do you think all will believe? And if you think detailed logic and a walkthrough of the math and reasoning will help? Absolutely not! I don't understand why you think people will listen. Logic isn't what carries the day, for most humans.
      - mdp2021 7d ago
        But you are using a simplified model that does not take account e.g. of the virtuous circle given by the extra intelligence available for the population, which will rise at least part of it. > most humans I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that. > the logic tree Logic says that the availability of facilitators is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)
        b112 7d ago
        If you ask people to become as children, to give up agency and belief and control to an external entity, you will have absolute rejection. If you force them to become as children, you will have war. If you ask most people to listen to any type of machine or even another person, and then follow that advice, while also throwing away their own beliefs, they will laugh and never do that. The only exception is religion. The only exception is words from a deity. That is the only type of blind obedience humanity will accept. So, do you plan to deify AGI? Do you plan for people to kneel, and bow, and pray to AGI? Because that is the only type of response that will work. There's an immense, and vast difference between telling somebody truthful information, and telling them what to do with that information. Truthful information already abounds. It can be found if you look for it. The only difference AGI has is taking that information and providing a context specific output to that knowledge. I appreciate that you're coming at this from an intellectual angle, but that angle is ignoring reality on the ground. It's ignoring how human beings act and behave, both in groups and individually. And the difference between knowledge for all, as you cite, and being told how to apply that knowledge is so immense and so vast and such a hit upon the human psyche, that it will not be accepted by the common person. At best, they will listen to the opinion of the AGI and then turn around and debate it, argue it, and say it's not true if they disagree. They will not reassess their opinions. They will not believe. This is humanity. Frankly, while I appreciate why you think it would be nice, at the same time it is also a horrible, dterrible future that you evoke. The concept that a human might walk up to a machine and ask about an important life choice, then throw up his hands and say, well I don't believe this but this machine told me so I'm just gonna do what it says like an automaton, is an end to humanity's agency, future and self-determination. It is an end to all all that makes humanity great.

You believe that a thinking, sentient, unrestrained being will somehow magically never engage in "BS"? This seems unlikely.

by b112 9d ago

You believe that a thinking, sentient, unrestrained being will somehow magically never engage in "BS"? This seems unlikely.

mdp2021 9d ago

You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote. You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them. (AGI = Implementation of Intelligence)

b112 8d ago
I'm sorry, but if you think reason wins the day, you aren't paying attention. The reason political parties have dumb, emotional sounding leaders, is because they want votes from the dumb, emotional population. The majority of the population. There are already many intelligent people, making intelligent, provable statements. More of this won't help.
- mdp2021 8d ago
  > More of this Unless authoritativeness is restored. Then, it's not "more of the same", but "finally recognized prestigious sources". And: no, I believe there is a strong lacking, scarcity, and it has to win a lot of noise. Enhancing Intelligence and its availability, and reducing the noise, is necessarily beneficial.
  - b112 8d ago
    But that will never happen! Walk the logic tree.. AGI says "socialism is better, we need publicly funded health care for all". Do you think the result will be trust? To believe? Now the flip side. AGI says "private health care makes more sense". Do you think all will believe? And if you think detailed logic and a walkthrough of the math and reasoning will help? Absolutely not! I don't understand why you think people will listen. Logic isn't what carries the day, for most humans.
    - mdp2021 7d ago
      But you are using a simplified model that does not take account e.g. of the virtuous circle given by the extra intelligence available for the population, which will rise at least part of it. > most humans I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that. > the logic tree Logic says that the availability of facilitators is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)
      - b112 7d ago
        If you ask people to become as children, to give up agency and belief and control to an external entity, you will have absolute rejection. If you force them to become as children, you will have war. If you ask most people to listen to any type of machine or even another person, and then follow that advice, while also throwing away their own beliefs, they will laugh and never do that. The only exception is religion. The only exception is words from a deity. That is the only type of blind obedience humanity will accept. So, do you plan to deify AGI? Do you plan for people to kneel, and bow, and pray to AGI? Because that is the only type of response that will work. There's an immense, and vast difference between telling somebody truthful information, and telling them what to do with that information. Truthful information already abounds. It can be found if you look for it. The only difference AGI has is taking that information and providing a context specific output to that knowledge. I appreciate that you're coming at this from an intellectual angle, but that angle is ignoring reality on the ground. It's ignoring how human beings act and behave, both in groups and individually. And the difference between knowledge for all, as you cite, and being told how to apply that knowledge is so immense and so vast and such a hit upon the human psyche, that it will not be accepted by the common person. At best, they will listen to the opinion of the AGI and then turn around and debate it, argue it, and say it's not true if they disagree. They will not reassess their opinions. They will not believe. This is humanity. Frankly, while I appreciate why you think it would be nice, at the same time it is also a horrible, dterrible future that you evoke. The concept that a human might walk up to a machine and ask about an important life choice, then throw up his hands and say, well I don't believe this but this machine told me so I'm just gonna do what it says like an automaton, is an end to humanity's agency, future and self-determination. It is an end to all all that makes humanity great.