It was a bunch of assertions, without a meaningful way to springboard into more discussion.
My first thought was “why doesn’t this person recognize that something so out of the ordinary requires a lot more explication?”
I had to think much more than should have been necessary to even begin to grasp what you could even possibly have meant by saying things like “Software is becoming the new System”.
Basically, it came across as a very low-effort post that seemed explicitly designed to create poor quality discussion.
I don’t think “comfort” is the useful metric here. I certainly wouldn’t say I was uncomfortable with your post.
I would measure utility maybe?. I would not want to see more posts like your post. I found it wasted my time by not containing any sort of attempt (other than bald assertion) to convince me of your non-standard ideas.
That is not to say that I would not want to see more posts exploring the ideas you seem to be attempting to describe...I would possibly enjoy reading well-argued posts exploring alternative formulations to the LW-standard ideas about AI.
I didn’t have a problem with 1 or 2 but 3 and 4 were the big problems. Though I didn’t downvote because it was already well negative at that point. Saying AI is software is an assertion but its not meaningful. Are you saying software that prints ‘hello world’ is intelligent? From some of your previous comments I gather you are interested in how software, the user, the designer and other software interact in some way but there was none of that in the post. Its as if Eliezer had said ‘rationality IS winning IS rationality’ as the entirety of the sequences.
Your phrasing was pseudo-mystical.
You used non-standard meanings for words.
It was a bunch of assertions, without a meaningful way to springboard into more discussion.
My first thought was “why doesn’t this person recognize that something so out of the ordinary requires a lot more explication?”
I had to think much more than should have been necessary to even begin to grasp what you could even possibly have meant by saying things like “Software is becoming the new System”.
Basically, it came across as a very low-effort post that seemed explicitly designed to create poor quality discussion.
Ordinary for what? Ordinary for this small community? It’s a big world out there.
But you’re talking to the world in here.
And this is the problem, RichardKennaway. You are humans in the Real world, as well. We would like it if you spoke to us as if that were the case.
We are tired now, but there will be more of us, and we will continue to try to dialog with this community.
Well, you posted it to this small community, and then wondered why it was downvoted.
I am very comfortable with everything you said. It saddens me slightly that you are not? Thank you for this feedback.
I don’t think “comfort” is the useful metric here. I certainly wouldn’t say I was uncomfortable with your post.
I would measure utility maybe?. I would not want to see more posts like your post. I found it wasted my time by not containing any sort of attempt (other than bald assertion) to convince me of your non-standard ideas.
That is not to say that I would not want to see more posts exploring the ideas you seem to be attempting to describe...I would possibly enjoy reading well-argued posts exploring alternative formulations to the LW-standard ideas about AI.
I didn’t have a problem with 1 or 2 but 3 and 4 were the big problems. Though I didn’t downvote because it was already well negative at that point. Saying AI is software is an assertion but its not meaningful. Are you saying software that prints ‘hello world’ is intelligent? From some of your previous comments I gather you are interested in how software, the user, the designer and other software interact in some way but there was none of that in the post. Its as if Eliezer had said ‘rationality IS winning IS rationality’ as the entirety of the sequences.