(November 5, 2016 at 10:10 am)abaris Wrote: The main problem seems to be that you neither know nor care what AI really means.
I do. But as I said it's irrelevant. Whether superintelligence is 'real intelligence' or not is irrelevant to whether it's superintelligent. My point was that intelligence itself is about comprehension and adapting in an environment doesn't make something intelligent. You can adapt skillfully without adapting intelligently... just like dogs can smell well without it being anything to do with smarts.
Quote:You're just fascinated by the premise without looking at the basic foundations any premise needs to have any kind of validity.
Premises aren't about validity. Premises are about soundness, as is the argument is a whole, the argument in between is about validity.
You can have a valid argument based on both sound or unsound premises.
Quote: The reasons why Harris just gave a nice science fiction horror scenario are many. And all of them have been presented here. But you waved them away with a flick of your fingers.
It's irrelevant. It's a strawman of his actual argument.
If I lay out an explicit argument and then talk about implicit hypotehtical examples and say they're not necessary, to attack my unnecessary implicit hypothetical examples and pretend they're necessary instead even when I've explicitly said they're not instead of dealing with my explicit argument and to misrepresent your objections against my implicit hypothetical examples as objections against my explicit argument when you haven't even addressed my explicit argument is to strawman my explicit argument.
Quote:I wonder if you would have just as fascinated if he had talked about alien invasion. Which would have been on similar lines.
This is all strawmanning.
