<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Hi Anders,<br>
<br>
Wow, do you remember having this exact conversation 2 years ago? I
started on a reply to your post, and then had that deja-vu feeling,
so I did a quick search and found this:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2012-December/075438.html">http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2012-December/075438.html</a><br>
<br>
And we've probably had similare conversations other years. It is
surprizing how identical the situation was back then, and how the
response I was working on right now, is almost identical to what I
said back then. Except for my response, like your response this
time, is of far less quality, and we obviously spent far less time
on them, this time around. In other words, it seems that the
quality of our conversation is degrading, over time, and certainly
not improving. Primarily because of lack of memory. This is
precisely the kind of waste of time infinitely repetitive bleating
that I am talking about.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that if you would have taken less time, back then, to
simply include what you said back then, in canonizer.com, rather
than posting it here, our conversation, today, would have been much
improved, rather than degrading, and would have taken far less
time. And, there is a good chance that someone else would have been
able to add to the conversation, in a competing camp, or improving
what you could have said, improving things even further.<br>
<br>
Perhaps you think that you can't add anything to Canonizer.com,
unless it is of peer review quality. No wonder you think you don't
have time. That is not the way the amplification of the wisdom of
the crowd canonization process works. In other words, all that is
required is less effort than is being applied to this repeated every
year, conversation to make significant progress.<br>
<br>
Some people assume we think what is in canonizer.com as "truth",
which it is clearly not, and thankfully you don't think that it
contains "truth". But you do seem to expect it to be some kind of
'unbiased' survey of what all experts think. It isn't! It is JUST
a state of the art real time representative of what all participants
currently believe (without having to read hundreds of individual
responses).<br>
<br>
And the best part of all of it, is how much time it does save.<br>
<br>
I trust you very much, because of what I've seen from you, and will
admit that you are probably at a much higher level of intelligence
on such issues, than I am able to comprehend. But, even if what you
understand isn't yet contained in Canonizer.com, what is there is of
far greater quality, than would be if I, and everyone else, would
have just produced a long diatribe response to every single time
someone says something like "I don't see how anyone could argue such
and such." Instead of repeating the same degrading over time
diatribe, every time, all I have to do is refer people to my camp.<br>
<br>
True, all the worlds best experts haven't yet participated in the
survey on qualia and consciousness. But I would argue that the so
called 'peer reviewed' articles coming out of the ivory tower on
this subject are making little, if any progress, especially compared
to what these participating in the amplification of the wisdom of
the crowd hobbyists <br>
have achieved at Canonizer.com. I am obviously biased, but I think
what is already there is vastly superior to anything coming out of
the Ivory tower and so called "peer reviewed" journals that all can
easily be argued as being very biased to one school of thought or
another.<br>
<br>
And we no longer have those infinitely repeated, degrading over time
arguments about qualia, like were so painful for everyone so often,
before Canonizer.com. Remember how so many people would get angry
every time someone even mentioned qualia?<br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/27/2014 5:34 PM, Anders Sandberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1407583457-17971@secure.ericade.net"
type="cite">
<div><span data-mailaddress="brent.allsop@canonizer.com"
data-contactname="Brent Allsop" class="clickable"><span
title="brent.allsop@canonizer.com">Brent Allsop</span><span
class="detail"> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com"><brent.allsop@canonizer.com></a></span></span>
, 27/10/2014 10:46 PM:<br>
<blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div class="mcntgmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="mcntgmail_extra"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/16"
title="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/16"
target="_blank">http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/16</a><br>
<br>
There are very strong arguments for why concern over AI is
just dumb, a complete waste of time, and so far at least,
there is more consensus for these arguments, than there
are for the fear mongering camps.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think this shows the problem with Canonizer. The "Concern
over "Unfriendly" AI is a Mistaken Waste of Time" camp's claim
"Intelligence is necessarily Moral" does not engage with
existing (peer reviewed) literature (c.f. <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11023-012-9281-3">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11023-012-9281-3</a>
- free versions exist online too) or known counterexamples
(AIXI-style paperclippers). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I know, I know, the proper response is of course for me to
form yet another camp and add these arguments. And so on. Fine.
But I do not have the time. And I happen to *like* the idea of
Canonizer. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The problem is that you need a significant critical mass, and
it needs to include the people who actually know stuff. This is
a hard problem when trying to get an entire debate onto a single
forum: the LessWrong crowd are pretty busy over there, and we at
FHI/MIRI are writing papers (or grant proposals) over here. So
you get the same situation as for information markets with too
little liquidity: very biased and chunky information because it
only represents whoever happens to be posting or the imprints of
somebody with social capital sending out a call for activity. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems to me that in order to get debates like this done
properly we need better ways of feeding existing literatures
into the Canonizer framework to produce initial scaffoldings so
there is no need for the locals to reinvent the wheel in a
biased way. And then there is the vexing question of how to
ensure a steady flow of commenters - in my Wikipedia models that
turned out to be more important than their average quality. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty
of Oxford University <br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>