Adam Summerfield

Theologian

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@StefanMolyneux 1) Did the bans on duelling result in men being emboldened to spread lies and has this negatively impacted our culture?
2) Is legalised duelling an important negative feedback mechanism for men to police each other's behavior with?

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@ShaneLegg AGI isn't on the horizon at all, it isn't even possible. Belief in "AGI" is based on reductionist interpretations of what intelligence is. The idea has been debunked, since John Searle published his Chinese Room Argument. AGI research is largely a deceptive gravy train now.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@paulg @eshear You've literally just given 2 reasons why they aren't physical objects. Correspondence isn't identity. And that correspondence is optional: not all programs or syntaxes correspond to physical rules.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@eshear They're not physical objects at all. The same computation can be run on completely different physical media, or even just in your imagination. Programs and computations aren't related to or constrained by the laws of physics. You're making assertions with nothing to back them up.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@jackclarkSF An increasing number of (different) people are doing something like the opposite as well: realizing that human-level AI isn't metaphysically possible.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@maxwinga You're in luck, because building a human-level artificial intelligence isn't metaphysically possible. https://t.co/CNJvGhsm3p credit: @JobstLandgrebe and Barry Smith

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@GaryMarcus Altman is likely the next Elizabeth Holmes.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@peterwildeford @brandonwilson How do we judge a prediction that states a 50% likelihood? If we're all unemployed due to technology in 10 years, do we interpret you as having been correct or incorrect?
I disagree in any case, that would require technology to outsmart every human being, which isn't possible.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@yacineMTB "the only reason (...) is because they're waiting for *permission* from some *expert*"

No, my reason is that AGI isn't possible. Programs don't have any intelligence, they just follow rules written by human beings.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@GaryMarcus There's no such thing as artificial general intelligence, because intelligence requires intentionality. AIs are just programs that are getting better and better at regurgitating what humans deem to be desirable, but the limit of that is human intelligence. Hence, no AGI.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@ESYudkowsky Society might not care if most of society besides AI researchers have an intuition that computers do not "compute" anything, but are merely a substrate used for programs to display the result we want them to display. If AI researchers haven't realized that, it'll seem odd to them

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

RE illusionisim #eliminativism: An illusion exists AS a subjective phenomena, a subjective experience lacking correspondence BETWEEN a conscious observer and objective reality. So illusions are dependent ON consciousness. This means the idea of illusionism literally an illusion.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@sama There is, AGI isn't possible. You're just trying to raise money by creating hype.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@icarus62 @Neofamulus38 @darwintojesus No, not all value judgments are particular to the mind that holds them. I can make a value judgment that everyone else makes based on some observation, because it's held constant between observers. That would make it objective.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@icarus62 @Neofamulus38 @darwintojesus You were arguing that all value judgements are subjective, to support the claim that "objectively wrong" is an oxymoron. Now you're only arguing that those that differ from other value judgements are subjective? That wouldn't support the original claim.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@icarus62 @Neofamulus38 @darwintojesus You're not engaging yourself. I said a majority of value judgements can differ between subjects, but I don't acknowledge all of them do. Something's objective if it is constant *between observers*, and you've responded twice by saying "physical constant" which refers to sth else.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@icarus62 @Neofamulus38 @darwintojesus >"They're not constants. Each mind can have its own value judgements"

Yeah, they *can* do. Some, or even majority, of your value judgments differ from other subjects. Doesn't mean *all* of them do. Again, that no value judgements are constant between observers is in contention.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@icarus62 @Neofamulus38 @darwintojesus That's just begging the question. The reason we think physical reality is objective is because it is constant with regards to observers. So if certain moral facts are constant, they're also objective. Simply defining all value judgments as subjective isn't a valid argument.

[Adam Summerfield @ACSummerfield]

@Neofamulus38 @icarus62 @darwintojesus >"Those commonalities are intersubjectivity. They are not objective."
>"Objective things can be true even if NO one believed them."

So things which are true if no one believed them aren't constant between subjects?