The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
edge.org
The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
1–10 of 172 posts
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#2Am I missing something or does the first reply (by George Church) completely ignore everything the original article says?
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#3"There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us."
On a different discussion site I recently pointed out there is a similar religious belief or religious dogma in the idea of the self driving car, that went over like a lead balloon. People acting in a religious manner and expressing religious belief don't like to have that pointed out to them. Probably vestigial monotheism, if they act religiously at their traditional church on Sundays they don't like it pointed out that they worship a different altar online, or the atheists get really wound up when they are called out for joining the atheist movement but acting as deacons of the church of the self driving car of the future.
Anyway just saying its a line of reasoning, that while true, can only lead to unpleasantness. Like discussion of scientific racial / gender differences or discussions about IQ, all you're gonna get is social signalling screaming "see no evil".
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#4Am I missing something or does the first reply (by George Church) completely ignore everything the original article says?
I don't think you are, he seems to respond with the predictable hyperbolic future-boosting expected of futurologists, "singulatarians" etc. Everything is all "exponential growth" and inevitable transformation right-around-the-corner.
Except it isn't.
And this ignored every point that jaron was trying to make and falls into all the traps he was trying to point out. It is an oblivious comment.
I must say, I don't find most of the contributors to edge particular insightful.
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#5"There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us." On a dif…
While I don't agree with Lanier, being an AI skeptic isn't quite the same as saying that self driving cars can't happen: we don't yet have a good understanding of either consciousness or tractable general optimization algorithms, so it's still possible that there's something that will make it impossible. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible.
Also, your sarcasm about the self driving car might have been too subtle. ;)
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#6God, what a lucid, piercing look at reality and the human condition he has. The whole part on translators, just brilliant.
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#7"There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us." On a dif…
vestigial monotheism
That's a fantastic metaphor.
I'm curious though how someone could act in a religious manner about a self-driving car.
To the original point though, I am very much in the camp of "historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us" and here is why: I believe that intelligence (and "consciousness" if you want to go down that rabbit hole) is completely material and as such it is possible that we will eventually understand the mechanics of them.
If we can understand those, then history would indicate (Historical fallacy) that we can replace or replicate those mechanics with more durable systems or materials than the fairly fragile.
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#8Am I missing something or does the first reply (by George Church) completely ignore everything the original article says?
I agree. It seems he doesn't really get it.
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#9"There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us." On a dif…
> Anyway just saying its a line of reasoning, that while true, can only lead to unpleasantness. Like discussion of scientific racial / gender differences or discussions about IQ, all you're gonna get is social signalling screaming "see no evil".
I'm waiting for it to fall apart. The amount of information that you have to willingly ignore these days to participate in the ''progress solves all ills'' narrative is huge.
On vestigial monotheism read Straw Dogs by John Gray if you haven't.
Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier
#10"There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the most wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical world—that for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an equivalence between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will be smarter and better than us and will take over from us." On a dif…