← Back to context

Comment by bigfishrunning

1 day ago

> Given that humans have been ascribing intention to inanimate objects and systems since time immemorial, this outcome is preordained.

This is true, but there's a big difference between "My car decided not to start" and "The computer wrote a hit piece about me". In reality, both of these events came from the same amount of intention, but to lay-people, these are two very different things. Educating about those differences (and very intentionally not blurring the lines) can only be a good thing.

So I've been reading up on what the philosophers and scientists have been saying this past century or so on this very topic. I think the layman is wise to steer clear. It's a war out there.

The one thing I can tell you with certainty: If anyone is claiming certainty, they're hallucinating harder than the AI :-P (is also what I tell lay people).

Turns out, hilariously, Claude's much criticized "I don't know" is actually epistemically the most honest (tracing from Chalmers).

[ semi randomly: I'm especially frustrated at psychology papers at the moment. I can't find a good continuous measure for affect. Almost all the protocols use discrete buckets :-/ ]