Thanks for the education, I’ve read quite some Frankish et al. but somehow I had missed that part. Yes, Kammerer interviews it was! Looking fwd to reading your two posts! Background: I always found Illusionists, but if you thus want Kammerer, ‘stupid’ in claiming, say, ‘actual reason to genuinely care’ may not fall apart if (thus, say, Kammerer’s strong) illusionism held, and Kammerer’s talk about the reasons I found really low-grade philo confabulation. Since a few years I, let’s say ‘intellectually’, put quite some credence to that type of illusionism, in a way (emotionally rather not at all so far), and find it super dangeorous. (fwiw I actually think rather than ‘machine is conscious’, the AI development may in my expectation also nudge, say, careful enquirers more towards such strong illusionism and it may be terrible—and be terrible even if potentially true, to the degree that ‘terrible’ then still deserves a place in language). May my other comment be downvoted appropriately :)
Thanks for the education, I’ve read quite some Frankish et al. but somehow I had missed that part. Yes, Kammerer interviews it was! Looking fwd to reading your two posts! Background: I always found Illusionists, but if you thus want Kammerer, ‘stupid’ in claiming, say, ‘actual reason to genuinely care’ may not fall apart if (thus, say, Kammerer’s strong) illusionism held, and Kammerer’s talk about the reasons I found really low-grade philo confabulation. Since a few years I, let’s say ‘intellectually’, put quite some credence to that type of illusionism, in a way (emotionally rather not at all so far), and find it super dangeorous. (fwiw I actually think rather than ‘machine is conscious’, the AI development may in my expectation also nudge, say, careful enquirers more towards such strong illusionism and it may be terrible—and be terrible even if potentially true, to the degree that ‘terrible’ then still deserves a place in language). May my other comment be downvoted appropriately :)