Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#2The article seems to take the position that Intelligent life on earth is zero sum and there is no victor. I'm not sure that is the case.
Then the rest of the article details the concept of theory of mind in philosophy and how that is not congruent with how neuroscience understands the brain. I don't see where the conflict is here unless you want to believe in the theory of mind.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#3Can someone drop a TLDR for the at-work crowd? would be V grateful
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#4The article seems to take the position that Intelligent life on earth is zero sum and there is no victor. I'm not sure that is the case. Then the rest of the article details the concept of theory of mind in philosophy and how that is not congruent with how neuroscience understands the brain. I don't see where the conflict is here unless you want to believe in the theory of mind.
So far, intelligence on Earth has been zero sum. We've wiped out multiple other intelligent species until we were the only ones.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#5The article seems to take the position that Intelligent life on earth is zero sum and there is no victor. I'm not sure that is the case. Then the rest of the article details the concept of theory of mind in philosophy and how that is not congruent with how neuroscience understands the brain. I don't see where the conflict is here unless you want to believe in the theory of mind.
The title is really ham-fisted. It means "threat" as in challenge.
Like a better understanding of the brain and mind might destroy all of our previous misconceptions about how it works, radically altering our perceptions of ourselves.
This is just as how AI is providing insight into how some cognitive processes work by serving as an experimental foundation.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#6The article seems to take the position that Intelligent life on earth is zero sum and there is no victor. I'm not sure that is the case. Then the rest of the article details the concept of theory of mind in philosophy and how that is not congruent with how neuroscience understands the brain. I don't see where the conflict is here unless you want to believe in the theory of mind.
So far, intelligence on Earth has been zero sum. We've wiped out multiple other intelligent species until we were the only ones.
We didn't do that because we're intelligent. We did that because we're assholes.
Bacteria could wipe us out tomorrow given the right circumstances. They can be assholes too.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far, intelligence on Earth has been zero sum. We've wiped out multiple other intelligent species until we were the only ones.
We didn't do that because we're intelligent. We did that because we're assholes. Bacteria could wipe us out tomorrow given the right circumstances. They can be assholes too.
> They can be assholes too.
Not really; they don't have any cognition. They're just little machines. They're no more of an asshole than a toaster or a clothespin.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#8Can someone drop a TLDR for the at-work crowd? would be V grateful
Humans have this seemingly innate or nearly innate theory of mind, where the beliefs and desires of other people can be reasoned about in an effort to understand or predict their behavior.
A few key neuroscience results suggest that the brain does not really work how the "theory of mind" has us think it should. The concepts of belief and desire that we use in our theory of mind, may actually just be crude heuristics that were useful at some point in our evolutionary past, but don't actually have explanatory power in the way most humans naturally try to apply them today.
I don't really know how strong this idea is. I think it is fairly speculative in these early days of research.
My summary l may have a bit of extra color. I listened to Sean Carroll's podcast with the article author, where this same topic was a big part of the conversation.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn't do that because we're intelligent. We did that because we're assholes. Bacteria could wipe us out tomorrow given the right circumstances. They can be assholes too.
> They can be assholes too. Not really; they don't have any cognition. They're just little machines. They're no more of an asshole than a toaster or a clothespin.
Depends on if you define asshole as intentions or results. Destroying a good thing for everyone for short term gain is classic asshole but of course they lack the agency.
Re: Is Neuroscience a Bigger Threat than Artificial Intelligence?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn't do that because we're intelligent. We did that because we're assholes. Bacteria could wipe us out tomorrow given the right circumstances. They can be assholes too.
> They can be assholes too. Not really; they don't have any cognition. They're just little machines. They're no more of an asshole than a toaster or a clothespin.
But isn't an asshole just a complex arrangement of proverbial toasters and clothespins?