From: Jef Allbright (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Dec 14 2005 - 08:39:10 MST
On 12/14/05, Richard Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Michael Vassar wrote:
> > Some posters seem to be very seriously unaware of what was said in
> > CAFAI, but having read and understood it should be a prerequisite to
> > posting here.
Since this is in fact the SIAI discussion list, it seems proper and
reasonable that those who exploit this forum be familiar with its
background, whether they agree with it or not.
I've been watching Eliezer's thinking in public for over ten years,
and have been encouraged by the observation that over the last year or
two he has forthrightly stated and shown that his understanding
evolves, as in general it does for all of us. [More on this point
<--snip--> // astute points about poorly defined concepts that are
meaningless upon deeper inspection
> "Maximize the utility function, where the utility function
> specifies that thinking is good"
> I've deliberately chosen a silly UF (thinking is good) because people on
> this list frequently talk as if a goal like that has a meaning that is
> just as transparent as the meaning of "put the blue block on top of the
> red block". The semantics of "thinking is good" is clearly not trivial,
> and in fact it is by no means obvious that the phrase can be given a
> clear enough semantics to enable it to be used as a sensible input to a
> decision-theory-driven AGI.
> This is infuriating nonsense: there are many people out there who
> utterly disagree with this position, and who have solid reasons for
> doing so. I am one of them.
[more on evolving understanding]
I am increasingly frustrated by the observation and experience that on
the various transhumanist lists, a graph of posting frequency by
individual would show a hump, with those who have enthusiastic but
relatively incomplete thinking posting far more than those who have
more coherent views or those who may not have strong views at all.
This is to be expected, but it tends to promote regression to the mean
more than leading-edge growth.
Creative growth requires diverse input, but mining these transhumanist
lists for nuggets of leading edge ideas, or planting seeds of thought
when a fertile opportunity seems to be presented, provides such sparse
payback that I and many others question whether we've long since past
the point of diminishing returns.
I think we've reached the point that we need new tools--an improved
framework--for collaborative thinking including concept mapping,
argument mapping, and shared knowledge that goes qualitatively beyond
the wiki and the email list. I don't have the available bandwidth to
create this or even to organize such a project, and I see it coming
just around the corner with all the growing awareness of "web 2.0" and
social software, but I would be very interested in contributing some
time and resources to such a project.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT