(It’s clear that you have misgivings along the following lines yourself.)
I don’t think I understand the purpose of this. By your own assessment
I am not an expert on computers, programming or AIs, nor even psychology or the human mind in general
so what is the value for you (or for others) in putting together a proposal for how to organize the psyche of an AI? I mean, wouldn’t you almost certainly get better results by first becoming something of an expert in at least one (I’d have thought at least two) of those areas, and then putting together your proposal?
I can think of one possibly-good reason. Perhaps there is some insight you think you have that you don’t expect others—even (especially?) experts in those fields to have had, and you think there’s value in getting that insight out there for others to think about, even before you take the time to develop expertise of your own. But surely you can’t expect that many of the fifteen separate points in your proposal embody such insights—that would be a really remarkable level of overconfidence.
Therefore:
I suggest that you attempt to distil from your proposal a small kernel of ideas that you’re prepared to defend as both original and valuable despite your admitted lack of expertise, and actually defend them as such.
Because otherwise what you’re doing is saying “I don’t really know much about this field, which is known to be very difficult. Here is my proposal for how to solve its central very difficult problem.” and it’s hard to see why a proposal presented in those terms is worth paying attention to.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I am not saying that you need some sort of AI credentials before having useful ideas. For all I know, you may indeed have some really valuable insights. Evidence and argument outrank credentials. But if you offer neither credentials nor evidence and arguments, what are we to do?)
Essentially it’s about arguments of authority, which have valid basis, in the basis of the authority. However I don’t think that I should have extremely special insights to be able to write about a subject. I’m not actually expecting any of my insights to be meaningful, just considering probabilities I think it would be a fairly bad calibration. But then how would I write about a subject, for which I have no basis of authority for?
For an example let’s consider the same issue from the perspective of democracy, since it’s easier. Average person probably should not consider themselves as proper representatives, however does that mean those people should not discuss politics? Considering the consequences of a common social norm, where unqualified people are unable to talk about matters of interest outside their expertise, that lowers the outcomes of the democracy, as a social process would not be involved. I suppose there’s an important difference though, which is that average people vote in democracies, where as sciences are not based on public votes.
Isn’t it (Or wouldn’t it be) a shame if so called average people, which I basically am too, would not be able to participate in conversations that they do not have expertise in?
But this is all around the subject, sinec your arguments are not really directed at the substance of what I wrote, but rather about how I wanted to represent them. This though seems logical as I did put quite a bit of effort into trying to be somewhere between “at least trying to be humble” and writing things as I see them. In anycase it’s not like you were to blame for that, as the substance itself was too general and vague to provide for an actual arguement. But that is due to my personality, which is that I am theoretical person and think in terms of some kind of abstractions, however that’s not to say I would be good at it. This is still relevant considering your reply, as I can’t actually take on any of these points from the perspective of debating over the substance of the thread.
In anycase I think you’ve pretty good points, so thanks for replying.
(It’s clear that you have misgivings along the following lines yourself.)
I don’t think I understand the purpose of this. By your own assessment
so what is the value for you (or for others) in putting together a proposal for how to organize the psyche of an AI? I mean, wouldn’t you almost certainly get better results by first becoming something of an expert in at least one (I’d have thought at least two) of those areas, and then putting together your proposal?
I can think of one possibly-good reason. Perhaps there is some insight you think you have that you don’t expect others—even (especially?) experts in those fields to have had, and you think there’s value in getting that insight out there for others to think about, even before you take the time to develop expertise of your own. But surely you can’t expect that many of the fifteen separate points in your proposal embody such insights—that would be a really remarkable level of overconfidence.
Therefore:
I suggest that you attempt to distil from your proposal a small kernel of ideas that you’re prepared to defend as both original and valuable despite your admitted lack of expertise, and actually defend them as such.
Because otherwise what you’re doing is saying “I don’t really know much about this field, which is known to be very difficult. Here is my proposal for how to solve its central very difficult problem.” and it’s hard to see why a proposal presented in those terms is worth paying attention to.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I am not saying that you need some sort of AI credentials before having useful ideas. For all I know, you may indeed have some really valuable insights. Evidence and argument outrank credentials. But if you offer neither credentials nor evidence and arguments, what are we to do?)
Essentially it’s about arguments of authority, which have valid basis, in the basis of the authority. However I don’t think that I should have extremely special insights to be able to write about a subject. I’m not actually expecting any of my insights to be meaningful, just considering probabilities I think it would be a fairly bad calibration. But then how would I write about a subject, for which I have no basis of authority for?
For an example let’s consider the same issue from the perspective of democracy, since it’s easier. Average person probably should not consider themselves as proper representatives, however does that mean those people should not discuss politics? Considering the consequences of a common social norm, where unqualified people are unable to talk about matters of interest outside their expertise, that lowers the outcomes of the democracy, as a social process would not be involved. I suppose there’s an important difference though, which is that average people vote in democracies, where as sciences are not based on public votes.
Isn’t it (Or wouldn’t it be) a shame if so called average people, which I basically am too, would not be able to participate in conversations that they do not have expertise in?
But this is all around the subject, sinec your arguments are not really directed at the substance of what I wrote, but rather about how I wanted to represent them. This though seems logical as I did put quite a bit of effort into trying to be somewhere between “at least trying to be humble” and writing things as I see them. In anycase it’s not like you were to blame for that, as the substance itself was too general and vague to provide for an actual arguement. But that is due to my personality, which is that I am theoretical person and think in terms of some kind of abstractions, however that’s not to say I would be good at it. This is still relevant considering your reply, as I can’t actually take on any of these points from the perspective of debating over the substance of the thread.
In anycase I think you’ve pretty good points, so thanks for replying.