Many AI Debates Are Way Too Philosophical and Theoretical
benthams.substack.com · 1,405 words · saved by 1 readers
You don't need to sort out abstruse metaphysical questions to figure out if AIs will take jobs
In this article, I am going to do something unprecedented: I am going to tell people to argue less about cool philosophical questions. Imagine you were in a forest with a bear who was both hungry and, like most bears, evinced little respect for human rights and the will of God. As it happens, there are a number of very interesting philosophical questions involving bears. Are they conscious (almost certainly yes!)? To what extent if any do they have knowledge? Are there really such things as bears, or just particles arranged bear-wise? If a bear assembled as a consequent of a random…
saved by
related reading
- Most Questions About AI Aren’t About AIconspicuouscognition.com
- The Three AI Pillsthezvi.substack.com
- The five philosophical disagreements underneath every AI argumentblog.cosmos-institute.org
- A Workaphile’s Apologymoalquraishi.wordpress.com
- AI Safety for Fleshy Humans: a whirlwind touraisafety.dance
- Why I'm not a philosophergleech.org
- The Artificiality of Alignmentjoinreboot.org
- Existential Risk from AI: An Exposition for Mathematiciansalkjash.github.io
- Unresolved debates about the future of AIhelentoner.substack.com
- Why You Should Almost Never Use AI to Write Anything Substantiveerichgrunewald.com
- The Argument from Philosophical Difficulty — LessWronglesswrong.com
- The Universe from an Intentional Stancecasparoesterheld.com