Jeremy Goodman

philosophy professor @JohnsHopkins

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

@LaviPicollo @LedermanHarvey @willmacaskill Sorry, that was telegraphic -- the > versus >> was meant to mean that A could be only slightly worse than C but B is much worse than A.

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

@Hgungorphil @willmacaskill umm..

[Harvey Lederman @LedermanHarvey]

Thanks for the engagement, @allTheYud ! Really appreciate it; never expected to see you here on this little account, and happy to have a chance to discuss.

1. Your initial post (https://t.co/3WsNCA4e2T ) was not restricted to AI. I'm open to the idea (mostly agree, actually) that academic philosophers aren't addressing the most important practical questions about AI. But that doesn't mean they never say sensible things. Your audience will read the tweet in the general way, not as "philosophy isn't addressing AI policy" in the way you've formulated the point here.

2. From the discussion here, I take it you're conceding that you don't read much academic philosophy, so the general pronouncement about the state of the field wasn't based in the evidence. This seems at odds with a policy of speaking only when one has good evidence. Perhaps that's not a principle that a rational Bayesian would uphold? I know questions about the game theory of communication and whether one should speak the truth are a bit hard to make come out in an intuitive way in the theory.

3. You're absolutely right that I was thinking of FDT in my comment. I stopped reading you around the time of FDT because I was very disappointed by your responses to what seemed to me devastating objections both to the intelligibility of the core ideas in the theory, and to the theory charitably interpreted (e.g. here: https://t.co/sXVXFaNabK). I'm frankly surprised the theory is still so seriously discussed. Maybe there's been progress on it, and I'm out of date, but at the time what I saw was confused enough and unserious in its engagement with objections that it seemed to me to be a waste of my intellectual energy to try to keep up. If there's a summary of how these problems have been addressed, that reflects your current views, I'd be glad to be pointed to it and would reconsider if I felt it rose to the (high) standard of intellectual honesty and charity in this area of academic philosophy.

4. It's the job of any serious author to determine whether what they are saying can be upheld in the face of objections and/or really does represent a new idea in the literature. It's not the job of academics to provide citations for everyone on the internet who thinks they have a new idea.

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

@TWilliamson55 Idk, Kit made a pretty entertaining entrance on the first outing

[Harvey Lederman @LedermanHarvey]

Like much of Williams’ work, the essay is beautifully written, under argued, and seems to me ultimately wrong. Indeed, the fact that this was the best such a brilliant philosopher could do seems to me evidence against the view he sets out to defend.

[Christopher Krupenye @ChrisKrupenye]

🚨Job Alert plz RT!

@JohnsHopkins Psych & Brain Sciences is looking for a new faculty colleague studying cognition!

We are excited about many areas of (especially higher) cognition in human adults, children, or nonhuman animals

Open-rank

https://t.co/gxdHhb1SWN

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

It was a real pleasure commenting on this stimulating talk by Simon DeDeo on the epistemology of mathematics!

[Laboratory for Social Minds @LaboratoryMinds]

Computational complexity and the philosophy of mathematics — a talk at the Johns Hopkins Natural Philosophy Symposium — with very gracious commentary by philosopher @JeremyLGoodman
https://t.co/zpGBnbxziu

[Harvey Lederman @LedermanHarvey]

This is such an exciting project! Thanks to @Jack_W_Lindsey for discussing our work, and giving me a chance to read a draft and comment on a draft. My view (which I think isn't far from the one in the paper) is that the yes/no on "are you experiencing something unusual?"...

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

You can read our full review (without a paywall) @ https://t.co/yYhekv6Hmb. And you can also check out @LedermanHarvey's paper that inspired us here: https://t.co/bB3MOkbVwc

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

Now out in @ScienceMagazine: @chazfirestone & I review @sapinker's new book "When Everyone Knows that Everyone Knows...". We learned a ton from it, but also think its central thesis—that common knowledge explains coordination—faces a powerful challenge. 🧵
https://t.co/lZg5IQxroV

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

Instead, our brief review draws on recent work by @LedermanHarvey, which argues that people aren't ever in a position to know as much as common knowledge demands. If that's right, then common knowledge can't do the work that Pinker wants it to in explaining social coordination.

[Harvey Lederman @LedermanHarvey]

Some thoughts on @tobyordoxford's interesting preprint 1/n

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

@dfkodsi Knowledge 142nd 😭 @TWilliamson55

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

The picture is pretty different in philosophy courses

[Steven Pinker @sapinker]

Analysis of US college syllabi by the Open Syllabus project shows that bell hooks is assigned more than Aristotle, Judith Butler more than Plato, Edward Said more than than Kant, and Foucault more than everybody. (Thanks to Jon Shields for these comparisons.) https://t.co/Nz2lIgf4po

[Jeremy Goodman @JeremyLGoodman]

I got a lot out of reflecting on this

[Harvey Lederman @LedermanHarvey]

I wrote about automation and the meaning of life, as a guest post on Scott Aaronson's Shtetl-Optimized.

https://t.co/qJKnJIJTPg

[Harvey Lederman @LedermanHarvey]

I wrote about automation and the meaning of life, as a guest post on Scott Aaronson's Shtetl-Optimized.

https://t.co/qJKnJIJTPg