Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

foundalis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#111

Post by bithive123 »

Confusion wrote: post #87
bithive123 wrote: post #43

This is either satire or early stage schizophrenia. When you see phrases like "Although we can’t predict the technology of the future on the basis of what we know at present" and "I do not want to give the impression I know how we can deal with the nuctroid threat" without a shred of irony you know something (beyond the simple logical errors) is awry. Sadly it's not unheard of for scientists and mathematicians to dab…

People can have peculiar opinions without having an identifiable psychiatric affliction. I doubt you are a psychiatrist and even if you were, you wouldn't be capable of diagnosing someone over the internet on the basis of a single text. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this being the highest voted comment at the moment. It does not make any argument at all. It just casts some aspersions on the author and his writing…

It would be trivial and boring to rebuke because the arguments are so flimsy. Perhaps my allusion to schizophrenia was uncalled for, I was trying to say that either the author is trying to be amusing (satire) or is a disorganized, paranoid thinker.

I guess I felt that using a clinical term would be less insulting but in retrospect I think calling out the argument as stupid and paranoid would have made it clearer why no point-by-point rebuttal is necessary. My other posts do get into the problem I have with the way he constructs his moral argument.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#112

Post by j-b »

sambeau wrote: post #104

Woah. I would have liked a warning about the picture of a kid with his arms blown off. I realise the internet is full of this but I try my best to avoid it. I don't want to become immune to the shock. The thought of this little guy's pain and suffering and the idea that he was casually being used to back-up an online essay is really sad.

Thanks for the heads up. I had not read the article yet and now I definitely won't.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#113

Post by psykotic »

arethuza wrote: post #102
psykotic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been forever since I read the book, but wasn't the whole point of the Emergency culture they didn't use AI and relied entirely on hyper-focused humans with enslavement implants?

Didn't Sherkaner Underhill initially think that the Emergent zipheads were actually an AI?

Wasn't that Pham Nuwen, after the initial attack?

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#114

Post by clarky07 »

aneth3 wrote: post #100
clarky07 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is strong evidence that most of the 9/11 hijackers did not know it was a suicide mission." Could you share a link to that? What part of "fly plane into building" didn't they understand?

Only those in the cockpit needed to know. The rest were in charge of subduing the passengers and could have been told they were hijacking the plane for ransom, or to meet demands, or any other story. If you consider the long lead up to 9/11, keeping most operatives in the dark makes the most sense for an Al Qaeda planners since it reduces the chances of a member talking or dropping out. "FBI investigators have offici…

Interesting. Good link. Yet, that still means that 8 of them knew. Not like it was 1 out of 19.

There have also been plenty of other suicide bombers at much smaller targets. Generally I don't think they are that excited about blowing themselves up, more they are willing to do it to take care of their families financially when they don't see any other options.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#115

Post by linhares »

bithive123 wrote: post #111
Confusion wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can have peculiar opinions without having an identifiable psychiatric affliction. I doubt you are a psychiatrist and even if you were, you wouldn't be capable of diagnosing someone over the internet on the basis of a single text. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this being the highest voted comment at the moment. It does not make any argument at all. It just casts some aspersions on the author and his writing…

It would be trivial and boring to rebuke because the arguments are so flimsy. Perhaps my allusion to schizophrenia was uncalled for, I was trying to say that either the author is trying to be amusing (satire) or is a disorganized, paranoid thinker. I guess I felt that using a clinical term would be less insulting but in retrospect I think calling out the argument as stupid and paranoid would have made it clearer why…

Hello internet people,

I've known Harry for a long time. Extremely intelligent. Amazing scientist. Hardcore pacifist. We are friends, we have been roommates, we have traveled together in the US, and in Greece. Good times.

He has taken a principled stance against AI, which I disagree with, but it's his decision. And I do respect it.

Every person that takes a principled stand will be called crazy.

This is sad, because if/when the time comes for YOU, dear reader, to take a principled stand on X, be sure they will call you crazy.

Anyways, I think his case isn't well put in the article. He provides a single scenario for a brutal use of AI. I think a better case can be put--scary stuff we are working on; AI is dangerous. I myself worry much more about Orwellianism and "We" and "Brazil" scenarios than the nuke stuff. But I don't think we should stop the work; I think the only route is to try to get more influence in the direction things may go.

I told Harry, back in the day when he wrote this, which is years ago (2006, probably), that I disagreed with his position, the nuke cat is out of the bag, we had a nice discussion about it, and that was that.

Is he crazy? Not by a longshot. I would leave my firstborn with him and travel around the world without a shred of worry.

So would my wife.

But wtf do I know; I'm just another crazy guy on the internet, right?

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#116

Post by bithive123 »

linhares wrote: post #115
bithive123 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be trivial and boring to rebuke because the arguments are so flimsy. Perhaps my allusion to schizophrenia was uncalled for, I was trying to say that either the author is trying to be amusing (satire) or is a disorganized, paranoid thinker. I guess I felt that using a clinical term would be less insulting but in retrospect I think calling out the argument as stupid and paranoid would have made it clearer why…

Hello internet people, I've known Harry for a long time. Extremely intelligent. Amazing scientist. Hardcore pacifist. We are friends, we have been roommates, we have traveled together in the US, and in Greece. Good times. He has taken a principled stance against AI, which I disagree with, but it's his decision. And I do respect it. Every person that takes a principled stand will be called crazy. This is sad, because…

I never meant to impugn the man or his character and I now regret invoking schizophrenia so casually. As you said, his case isn't well put. It is his writing and arguments which I find sloppy and the connections he makes, as presented, smell somewhat delusional. This is not the same as saying that he's "crazy".

I am rejecting, strongly, the assertion that his is a principled stance. The piece is simply is not compelling since his malicious AI would be acting on behalf or under the command of humans, just like all weapons throughout history. I think it's a simplistic, misguided, stance. The kind I remember flirting with when I first took some college-level philosophy courses years ago.

Re: Why I stopped working on the Bongard Problems

#117

Post by dlitz »

baddox wrote: post #75
victork2 wrote: post #11

Pardon me but ... I think that there are way worse dangers than "humanoid bombs"... One of the main reason is that to achieve a nuclear explosion you need to have a critical mass and the it's hard to conceal for a lot of reasons (radiation etc...). What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? A lot of scientists have wondered about these ethical questions but I believe that the bene…

> What's the difference with a car that could have a bomb in its trunk? Or a bag? Or, for that matter, a personal firearm?

Or an internet?
Post reply on HN