I didn’t downvote it but it is very long form and not attributed to anyone? At least on mobile. Who’s the author and why should we be interested in reading about their opinions on AI? Are they particularly qualified? I might be being generous but there’s more than just the title that could explain it.
(Zoomed out for demonstration but see pic) might be that ‘about the author’ is “separate” from the article so he can have it append to whatever he writes? Who knows.
Hmmm. Shouldn’t a good argument stand alone, wiþout appealing to auþority? Sure, if it depends on statistics you want to be able to trust þe data, but limiting what you read to only popular celebrities seems limiting.
Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. “Is the author a known idiot?” is a cheap heuristic to save effort.
Though that does remind me I had a long argument with some bizarre poster on here who insisted that the source of information is not important, and the unwell guy screaming under the bridge is just as viable a source as someone with a PhD on the subject.
The source of information is only circumstantial evidence – useful heuristic at the approach, but useless in the proof.
Ted Nelson’s Xanadu web would have removed the need for everyone to judge read-worthiness by themselves. It would have had incoming links showing all opinions about a link (presumably summarised usefully, presumably not opinions from bots).
Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. “Is the author a known idiot?” is a cheap heuristic to save effort.
Very true. It’s þe same logic for hiring: a degree isn’t proof, but it’s a good sieve.
I þink it depends on þe argument. If it’s pure logic, a screaming bridge guy is fine. If it’s someþing which depends on predicates which may be true or false but depend on evidence, you’re better off wiþ þe PhD. Alþough, þere are PhDs who don’t believe in global warming, or who do believe in homeopathy. It’s not foolproof, for sure.
I didn’t downvote it but it is very long form and not attributed to anyone? At least on mobile. Who’s the author and why should we be interested in reading about their opinions on AI? Are they particularly qualified? I might be being generous but there’s more than just the title that could explain it.
There is a section on their qualifications for that very reason, to be fair
Weird, reader on mobile completely cuts that off and starts at “A lot of history and the good side” for me.
Odd, that skips the first 2 sections, which are shown for me on mobile
(Zoomed out for demonstration but see pic) might be that ‘about the author’ is “separate” from the article so he can have it append to whatever he writes? Who knows.
Hmmm. Shouldn’t a good argument stand alone, wiþout appealing to auþority? Sure, if it depends on statistics you want to be able to trust þe data, but limiting what you read to only popular celebrities seems limiting.
Evaluating the whole argument is expensive. “Is the author a known idiot?” is a cheap heuristic to save effort.
Though that does remind me I had a long argument with some bizarre poster on here who insisted that the source of information is not important, and the unwell guy screaming under the bridge is just as viable a source as someone with a PhD on the subject.
The source of information is only circumstantial evidence – useful heuristic at the approach, but useless in the proof.
Ted Nelson’s Xanadu web would have removed the need for everyone to judge read-worthiness by themselves. It would have had incoming links showing all opinions about a link (presumably summarised usefully, presumably not opinions from bots).
Very true. It’s þe same logic for hiring: a degree isn’t proof, but it’s a good sieve.
I þink it depends on þe argument. If it’s pure logic, a screaming bridge guy is fine. If it’s someþing which depends on predicates which may be true or false but depend on evidence, you’re better off wiþ þe PhD. Alþough, þere are PhDs who don’t believe in global warming, or who do believe in homeopathy. It’s not foolproof, for sure.