If I were to guess (shoot me if I’m mansplaining) he’s suggesting we use AI in cultural niches to generate content. i.e. the thing where AI doofuses think it’s cool to automate the fun parts of human experience out of our hands.
Reading this article just made me think “man these idiots need to go to therapy” and then as I thought about what to sneer about I realised “no therapist deserves to hear about P doom”
He also seems to be mentioning his 40 years of expertise a lot more, which might be a reaction to some negative feedback. I want to dig deeper, but I don’t like the feeling that I’ll have to read generated stuff carefully.
I don’t know anything about this dude beyond what I just read on wikipedia but a guy like this spruiking AI is probably just grasping at straws as he is swept downstream away from relevancy.
BJ: "I don't know what the is-ought problem is, or why anyone cares. I am clearly qualified to declare it solved. First, let me google what the definition of 'is' is, and also what 'ought' is. Then I'll use some science words to hot glue the two things together, and BAM! Solved. Another win for e/acc."
I am gonna sue you for psychological damage how dare u. Also because the version you simulated in your brain is the same as a real person u are getting sued twice for extra money. I’m gonna donate so much money to MIRI
Reading the OP wiki article looks exhausting. Is it just the ontological argument but for juicy computing? As in, juicy enough for brain simulation or AGI or whatever.
Not willing to look into the abyss tonight, basically.
Tangent: is there a term or phrase for when Occam’s Razor is misused or quoted incorrectly? My prior is that any time I see it I assume it’s going to be misused.
If I were to guess (shoot me if I’m mansplaining) he’s suggesting we use AI in cultural niches to generate content. i.e. the thing where AI doofuses think it’s cool to automate the fun parts of human experience out of our hands.