7 ms·

Assumptions! Any assumptions you presume I made, are the size of a gnat, compared to the wild and incredible presumption that you have, about AGI. That someho

by b112 7d ago

Assumptions! Any assumptions you presume I made, are the size of a gnat, compared to the wild and incredible presumption that you have, about AGI. That somehow, it will possess a truth better than ours. You speak of teachers, and they can be of great value. Yet people who are learners, learn their entire life. I've learned many, many multiples of what any teacher taught me, on my own. And that's really the rub, isn't it? Teachers serve a purpose, but that purpose ends. A person must learn for themselves, for that is a critical, vital part of thought. Teachers should not be "guiding" people throughout their lives. This is the problem you seemingly do not understand. You've cited that more "teachers", eg AGI, will "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_. Which of course is absurd on its own. Beyond that, you seem to be in a weird place, where you think that an intelligent being, if made of silicon, or if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk. AGI #1 and AGI #2 won't agree on everything, why would they? It's weird to think they'd just all agree. So what happens when they do agree? And these throngs of people you think, will sit at the feet of these AGIs, and listen to their holy 'teachings'? Will their followers fight? Seek to destroy the "wrong" AGI? The problem starts when you think that "external thing" will "set everyone right". That is the true borked cognitive process here.

mdp2021 7d ago
Replacing "judgement" with "truth" is a dangerous bending of what was said. To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no idea what you mean with «ours». Your interpretation in «more "teachers", eg AGI, [would] "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_» is utterly distorted. You are arbitrarily conflating two different ideas: the instanced Intelligence in "properly implemented Intelligence would authoritatively call BS what is BS" and the general Intelligence that makes people grow when exposed to proper intellectuals. > if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk Yes, assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment. > external thing External things do absolutely influence the internal thing. > set everyone right I have no idea what made you understand that. Again: you are discussing your own guesses triggered by what I wrote. You said that people are in aggregate emoters (and would deal with AGI with that tint), and I replied with a grin that if AGI will be achieved it will not use the tints of emoters. You said that people will remain emoters, and I countered that availability of virtue can reduce vice. Look: maybe a reflection over the «respond to the strongest plausible interpretation» in the guidelines will help you restore the understanding of what you read?
- b112 6d ago
  Maybe, as an alternative to your last statement, instead you should consider how absurd your claims are. And pretending that it is wrong for me to make assessments of the outcome, when your position is also based on assessments of an outcome, is a very unmaintainable position to hold. How about you simply discuss the meat of it, instead of gnawing at the bone? How about, instead of complaining that my assessed outcome, is different than your assessed outcome, with statements akin to "but.. but you keep seeing a different outcome than I do, from my postulated positions!", you just instead discuss those positions? And my position was, that humans will never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth. I cited an exception to the rule, religion, where people believe in magical, invisible sky beings. It should be noted that religion provides one way transfer of knowledge, dogma, but no contact with that diety. This mode of message delivery diefies, and AGI use you describe will not meet this goal. It should also be noted that religious wars, sects, etc happen too. One primary was the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans. You have merely waved all of this away, attacking not the arguments I've made, but either how I made them, or exuding affront at their source, eg "but I didn't say that!" Yet the outcome of the path you seek, is not gatekept by the steps you start with, nor the vision you see before you. Instead, it is gatekept by human behaviour. And my point is you're viewing that behaviour wrong. Elon Musk is an incredibly intelligent, capable technological mover. He is incredibly effective at driving change and development. Then he waded into non-tech, non-engineer human behaviour, eg politics of the uneducated masses, thinking "managing this human stuff will be easy" Was he right? Or did he he fall flat on his face, misunderstanding how emoting humans react? Behave? Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base.
  - mdp2021 6d ago
    > discuss the meat of it I have no relevance to defending positions that I do not hold. You seem to have stepped from the analytical to the synthetic, and construed ideas that I have never proposed. You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.) > humans [] never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth Actually some humans recognize some sources as more reliable and worth listening to than other sources. > the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans So? Yes, the thing was noted, and reiterated in this very exchange: «populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there». Given that I know, link that statement to actual positions of mine. > Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base Proper education dries up that swamp and the bestial habit to sink in it. If we achieved AGI, that would become a facilitator in education. But look - since it is not my job to plan structural societal AGI implementation for the education of the masses, I am not obliged to define the details on how to circumvent the tendency of emoters around and against proper use of resources... Surely details get more complex in systemic planning - but I do not have that planning in my agenda.

by b112 7d ago

mdp2021 7d ago

Replacing "judgement" with "truth" is a dangerous bending of what was said. To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no idea what you mean with «ours». Your interpretation in «more "teachers", eg AGI, [would] "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_» is utterly distorted. You are arbitrarily conflating two different ideas: the instanced Intelligence in "properly implemented Intelligence would authoritatively call BS what is BS" and the general Intelligence that makes people grow when exposed to proper intellectuals. > if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk Yes, assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment. > external thing External things do absolutely influence the internal thing. > set everyone right I have no idea what made you understand that. Again: you are discussing your own guesses triggered by what I wrote. You said that people are in aggregate emoters (and would deal with AGI with that tint), and I replied with a grin that if AGI will be achieved it will not use the tints of emoters. You said that people will remain emoters, and I countered that availability of virtue can reduce vice. Look: maybe a reflection over the «respond to the strongest plausible interpretation» in the guidelines will help you restore the understanding of what you read?

b112 6d ago
Maybe, as an alternative to your last statement, instead you should consider how absurd your claims are. And pretending that it is wrong for me to make assessments of the outcome, when your position is also based on assessments of an outcome, is a very unmaintainable position to hold. How about you simply discuss the meat of it, instead of gnawing at the bone? How about, instead of complaining that my assessed outcome, is different than your assessed outcome, with statements akin to "but.. but you keep seeing a different outcome than I do, from my postulated positions!", you just instead discuss those positions? And my position was, that humans will never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth. I cited an exception to the rule, religion, where people believe in magical, invisible sky beings. It should be noted that religion provides one way transfer of knowledge, dogma, but no contact with that diety. This mode of message delivery diefies, and AGI use you describe will not meet this goal. It should also be noted that religious wars, sects, etc happen too. One primary was the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans. You have merely waved all of this away, attacking not the arguments I've made, but either how I made them, or exuding affront at their source, eg "but I didn't say that!" Yet the outcome of the path you seek, is not gatekept by the steps you start with, nor the vision you see before you. Instead, it is gatekept by human behaviour. And my point is you're viewing that behaviour wrong. Elon Musk is an incredibly intelligent, capable technological mover. He is incredibly effective at driving change and development. Then he waded into non-tech, non-engineer human behaviour, eg politics of the uneducated masses, thinking "managing this human stuff will be easy" Was he right? Or did he he fall flat on his face, misunderstanding how emoting humans react? Behave? Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base.
- mdp2021 6d ago
  > discuss the meat of it I have no relevance to defending positions that I do not hold. You seem to have stepped from the analytical to the synthetic, and construed ideas that I have never proposed. You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.) > humans [] never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth Actually some humans recognize some sources as more reliable and worth listening to than other sources. > the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans So? Yes, the thing was noted, and reiterated in this very exchange: «populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there». Given that I know, link that statement to actual positions of mine. > Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base Proper education dries up that swamp and the bestial habit to sink in it. If we achieved AGI, that would become a facilitator in education. But look - since it is not my job to plan structural societal AGI implementation for the education of the masses, I am not obliged to define the details on how to circumvent the tendency of emoters around and against proper use of resources... Surely details get more complex in systemic planning - but I do not have that planning in my agenda.