One of the big “stops on the doom train” should be: “Is materialism true?” It seems like the doom argument depends fairly heavily on it being true, yet there are powerful arguments against materialism.
There are many philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians who are not materialists; some of whom have thought deeply about the issue and are extremely smart. It seems like their views are given hardly any weight by the doom side.
There are a number of arguments against materialism. Some of them are covered in a clear, accessible way in the book “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.” One of them is an argument based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the need for an observer who is not wholly explicable by physics.
The main alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation is the Many Worlds interpretation, which itself requires belief in some pretty wild things. For example, in the Many Worlds interpretation, there are worlds in which you are the Prime Minister of Belize. There are also worlds in which ChatGPT hasn’t been invented and may not be for another million years.
Great discussion and analysis! However, it’s my opinion that no matter how you slice or dice it what I’ve come up with is the only way in which AI will have a chance at being aligned.
Which brings me to the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. What makes it even more difficult is that in addition to that the horses are like trying to herd cats on the way to the drinking hole. Which is another way of saying that we’re in big trouble and we’re our own worst enemy.
Great stuff. Keep up the good work.
One of the big “stops on the doom train” should be: “Is materialism true?” It seems like the doom argument depends fairly heavily on it being true, yet there are powerful arguments against materialism.
There are many philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians who are not materialists; some of whom have thought deeply about the issue and are extremely smart. It seems like their views are given hardly any weight by the doom side.
Care to explain?
There are a number of arguments against materialism. Some of them are covered in a clear, accessible way in the book “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.” One of them is an argument based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the need for an observer who is not wholly explicable by physics.
The main alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation is the Many Worlds interpretation, which itself requires belief in some pretty wild things. For example, in the Many Worlds interpretation, there are worlds in which you are the Prime Minister of Belize. There are also worlds in which ChatGPT hasn’t been invented and may not be for another million years.
You should also look into non-constructive inevitability. Here’s an explanation from Gemini but you can ask any chat bot & get a similar explanation: https://substack.com/@cyberneticist/note/c-130764351
Great discussion and analysis! However, it’s my opinion that no matter how you slice or dice it what I’ve come up with is the only way in which AI will have a chance at being aligned.
Which brings me to the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. What makes it even more difficult is that in addition to that the horses are like trying to herd cats on the way to the drinking hole. Which is another way of saying that we’re in big trouble and we’re our own worst enemy.
We’re not in trouble b/c of AI.