(LessWrong, pretend I went through and tagged all comments in this thread that assume their conclusion with “Assuming the conclusion.”.)
Pretend I went through and downvoted all the tags. If they were anything like the grandparent they would be gross misapplications of the phrase. “Assuming the conclusions” just isn’t what cousin_it is doing in those two particular quotes.
Me (under my breath): Yeah. That’s actually my definition of “superintelligent”, but you seem to have a concept of “intelligence” that’s entangled with many accidental facts about humans, so let’s not go there.
Assuming the conclusion.
That is making commentary on the conversation with implied criticism of the other’s perceived misuse of semantic quibbling. The ‘conclusion’ you would object to cousin_it assuming doesn’t even get involved there.
I don’t see how you can think that saying “humanity can someday find a way to build such a machine” isn’t assuming the conclusion. That’s the conclusion, and it’s being used as an argument.
That is making commentary on the conversation with implied criticism of the other’s perceived misuse of semantic quibbling.
“[Y]ou seem to have a concept of ‘intelligence’ that’s entangled with many accidental facts about humans” is the conclusion. Slepnev assumes it. Therefore, Slepnev assumes the conclusion. (It would be a restatement of the conclusion if his earlier arguments hadn’t also just been assuming the conclusion.) That the assumption of the conclusion is only implicit in the criticism doesn’t make it any less unjustified; in fact, it makes it more unjustified, because it has overtones of ‘the conclusion I have asserted is obviously correct, and you are stupid for not already having come to the same conclusion I have’.
Remember, I mostly agree with Slepnev’s conclusion, which is why I’m especially annoyed by non-arguments for it that are likely to just be turnoffs for many intelligent people and banners of cultish acceptance for many stupid people.
(LessWrong, pretend I went through and tagged all comments in this thread that assume their conclusion with “Assuming the conclusion.”.)
Pretend I went through and downvoted all the tags. If they were anything like the grandparent they would be gross misapplications of the phrase. “Assuming the conclusions” just isn’t what cousin_it is doing in those two particular quotes.
That is making commentary on the conversation with implied criticism of the other’s perceived misuse of semantic quibbling. The ‘conclusion’ you would object to cousin_it assuming doesn’t even get involved there.
I don’t see how you can think that saying “humanity can someday find a way to build such a machine” isn’t assuming the conclusion. That’s the conclusion, and it’s being used as an argument.
“[Y]ou seem to have a concept of ‘intelligence’ that’s entangled with many accidental facts about humans” is the conclusion. Slepnev assumes it. Therefore, Slepnev assumes the conclusion. (It would be a restatement of the conclusion if his earlier arguments hadn’t also just been assuming the conclusion.) That the assumption of the conclusion is only implicit in the criticism doesn’t make it any less unjustified; in fact, it makes it more unjustified, because it has overtones of ‘the conclusion I have asserted is obviously correct, and you are stupid for not already having come to the same conclusion I have’.
Remember, I mostly agree with Slepnev’s conclusion, which is why I’m especially annoyed by non-arguments for it that are likely to just be turnoffs for many intelligent people and banners of cultish acceptance for many stupid people.