Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
If you were to create a humanlike artificial intelligence (in the sense of a whole cognitive apparatus for learning, emotions, motivation etc etc; not in the sense of a chatbot), you would basically just create a guy. Worse: a baby, with the potential of becoming a guy. Generality requires tradeoffs in specificity and such. The smaller and more tightly circumscribable the types of things an intelligent system is supposed to handle are, the more right, fast, etc. the system can be. Wire a button to a bell and the bell’s intelligence will accurately ring the bell when the button is pressed. Create a human child and your resulting intelligence has the full range from Gustav Fechner to someone who desperately wants to impress Elizier Yudkowski. It can potentially tackle any sort of problem, but none necessarily well.
That’s why the “rationalist” fictions about Bayesian superintelligences miss the mark, too. A Bayesian intelligence will use the result of tempering prior information with new information. If they are right in their starting point, then it’s not that impressive if they are right afterwards. If their priors are fucked, theyd conclude bullshit like a misinformed human would. Garbage in, garbage out
But yeah; AGI, ignoring that chatbots won’t ever be that, would be just some guy.