Sages in singularity
post by ArthurLidia · 2019-03-01T01:47:36.393Z · LW · GW · 2 commentsContents
2 comments
We live in the most need of sage. Last philosopher who was truly trained as a real sage philosopher being Ludwig Wittgenstein (According to A.C Grayling). The rise of the artificial mind and AGI will destabilise the balance between wisdom and intelligence. DeepMind, OpenAI Learning to read and write and answer questions. I think now the best time AI philosopher is Yudkowsky and otherd are doing, utilitarianism and ethics on it. Which is a philosophical consequences. But what does it truly mean to be a philosopher? Also because philosophy has a low signal to noise ratio today (along with logic).
Demis Hassabis said in a video that with more powerful intelligence we may be able to solve problems with meaning of life and philosophy in general. But that is obviously wrong, any intelligent agent will have little to do with the problem of meaning of life. Neumann and Bertrand Russell the closest thing i can point my finger to and say that would AGI look like but 9000 times more smarter and immortal. They would simply dismiss the idea saying the proposition is illogical. As any analytical school would do. The proposition is invalid not because of the syllogism fallacy [LW · GW] and for the curios the still ongoing series on meaningness.com (this guy you should follow). Are there any sages left you know (exception Nick Bostrom the mainstream one)?
2 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by pranomostro · 2019-03-02T16:03:28.167Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You were downvoted, but I think somebody should try to explain exactly why.
Both the idea and the terminology for "sages" is highly questionable. It evokes the idea of mysterious answers [LW · GW] and to arguments from authority [LW · GW] which are exactly what we would want to avoid.
Could you maybe clarify a bit more what you mean by the word "sage"? It seems like you conflate people who want to solve problems and win [LW · GW] with people who want deep insights [LW · GW] into the nature of meaning.
Replies from: ArthurLidia↑ comment by ArthurLidia · 2019-03-02T16:56:42.259Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I meant in a way that with the progress of more artificial intelligence (Demis Hassabis genuinely belives the fact we can solve all problems of philosophy with intelligence only and no experience). This short post should have stayed a draft so I am sorry for that.