Also “neither discusses intelligence at any length?” This feels like an isolated demand for rigor; it feels like the author means “neither discusses intelligence as much as I think they should.” Ditto for “the assumptions… have not been investigated in detail.”
These seem correct to me? Bostrom’s discussion of intelligence was pretty vague and hand-wavy, in my opinion; not specific enough to show that it can work the way that Bostrom suggests (as critics tend to point out). I started doing some work to analyze it better in How Feasible is the Rapid Development of Artificial Superintelligence, but I would not call this a particularly detailed investigation either.
I’d love to discuss this sometime with you then. :) I certainly agree there was a lot of room for improvement, but I think the quotes I pulled from this SEP article were pretty unjustified.
Moreover I think Bostrom’s definitions are plenty good enough to support the arguments he makes.
Moreover I think Bostrom’s definitions are plenty good enough to support the arguments he makes.
I would have to reread the relevant sections before discussing this in more detail, but my impression is that Bostrom’s definitions are certainly good enough to support his argument of “this is plausible enough to be worth investigating further”. But as the SEP article correctly points out, not much of that further investigation has been done yet.
These seem correct to me? Bostrom’s discussion of intelligence was pretty vague and hand-wavy, in my opinion; not specific enough to show that it can work the way that Bostrom suggests (as critics tend to point out). I started doing some work to analyze it better in How Feasible is the Rapid Development of Artificial Superintelligence, but I would not call this a particularly detailed investigation either.
I’d love to discuss this sometime with you then. :) I certainly agree there was a lot of room for improvement, but I think the quotes I pulled from this SEP article were pretty unjustified.
Moreover I think Bostrom’s definitions are plenty good enough to support the arguments he makes.
I would have to reread the relevant sections before discussing this in more detail, but my impression is that Bostrom’s definitions are certainly good enough to support his argument of “this is plausible enough to be worth investigating further”. But as the SEP article correctly points out, not much of that further investigation has been done yet.
This discussion on intelligence is what my work focuses on, I found this lacking as well. I would appreciate more references to similar discussions.