(cache) David Chalmers on Artificial Intelligence : philosophy

The guff on "we could be inside a simulation now" is ridiculously naive and just shows ignorance on so many different subjects - physics, computer science and so on.

Taking that and saying "If this premise is true...and this one...then we can conclude this" whilst at the same time demonstrating a complete non-understanding of the completely glossed over details of those premises is why philosophy is really no longer a serious subject.

It's like theology and astrology. Any good bits in philosophy are already swallowed by (and improved) by science and mathematics, leaving philosophy as a subject of fools waving their arms around arguing about subjects they don't actually understand even the basics of.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 3日前 (24子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 3日前 (23子コメント)

Chalmers' talk and associated paper are not about simulations, they are about AI takeoff.

If you watched his talk before replying I'm sure your reply would be better. He does refer to simulations throughout.

Simulation conjectures are just nonsensical.

Here's why.

If you wanted to simulate an electron you can either do it the easy way - just get an electron and don't simulate it at all. Or the hard way - which requires more than one electron to do - think about that. e.g you want to store state about an electron or details about it's position in the world and so on - how do you do that in a computer? Well, they use electronics and electrons and so on. But one electron is not really enough to do that, unless, as a I said, you forget about "simulation" and just take the thing itself.

Since our universe and everything in it, so far as science shows us, is made up of particles including electrons, it's clear that the easy way to simulate the universe would be to simply create a universe.

In the same way that, everyone can make a cup of tea, but simulating a cup of tea down to the particle level is mind-numbingly difficult. So, anyone sane would just put the kettle on.

The "computer simulation" of all the particles in the universe and their interactions would require more matter than is in the universe.

And let's face it, we don't even kid ourselves that we have the knowledge of all the particles nor the exact rules for how they behave. Sure you can wave your hands and suggest some really clever civilization that does but it's science fiction and when they talk about computer simulations, as you can see above, there's a similar fantasy about computer systems that are more advanced or powerful than the ones we have - without even thinking for 5 seconds about the problem.

They just do a "imagine if a civilisation was really, really much cleverer than we are...and imagine if they had computers that were really, really more powerful than ours therefore x" and it's just nonsense.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3日前 (15子コメント)

If you watched his talk before replying I'm sure your reply would be better. He does refer to simulations throughout.

Don't worry, I did. The first problem is that in the first instance he's merely offering simulations as a sort of hypothesis for controlling AI. If you think that they are not possible, then that really only strengthens the general point of his argument that we should be very careful about the implications of producing AI entities. The second problem is that in the first instance his conception of a simulation only requires that AI behavior be adequately simulated, not that phenomenological experiences and other difficult details be simulated. The third problem is that in the second instance, his application of the principle of a simulation as a relevant topic to personal identity and mind uploading is merely based on the ramifications of its conceivability and theoretical possibility. So if you want to reject his ideas you can't just reject a general notion of simulations, you have to reject the specific simulation ideas that he uses in his argument.

Simulation conjectures are just nonsensical.

Again, do you have any sources? This is high level stuff which has been discussed by many physicists and computer scientists. I wouldn't expect the answers to be so simple.

If you wanted to simulate an electron you can either do it the easy way - just get an electron and don't simulate it at all. Or the hard way - which requires more than one electron to do - think about that. e.g you want to store state about an electron or details about it's position in the world and so on - how do you do that in a computer? Well, they use electronics and electrons and so on. But one electron is not really enough to do that, unless, as a I said, you forget about "simulation" and just take the thing itself.

Simulations by definition operate at a level of abstraction - it's clearly not necessary that they simulate every single particle in the known universe, just the ones that are observed, which is going to be something like 10^-80 as many or something like that.

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 3日前* (14子コメント)

This is high level stuff which has been discussed by many physicists and computer scientists.

No it isn't. It's hand-waving guff written by philosophers. Nick Bostrom is cited as the author of one paper, for example.

Simulations by definition operate at a level of abstraction

False. You're confusing our usage of simulations - i.e real simulations that exist, which, yes, are simplifications of the world.

e.g computer games.

However, if I woke up tomorrow inside a computer game I wouldn't be fooled for longer than 5 minutes that I was inside a simulation. The physics wouldn't be right. There'd be no particles. You couldn't build a large hadron collider and test it. You couldn't even build at all. What about drilling for oil?

A simulation in which I cannot tell I'm living in it absolutely would need to simulate everything and even saying "just the ones that are observed" is not reducing the problem at all. Not the least when you write 10^-80. 10^-80 is less than 1. Suggesting we can add maths to the list of subjects you don't understand but aren't letting that stop you.

If you think it is, write me a simulation of just a cup of tea. That's only a few trillion particles so should be easy, right? If you can't do it, then don't hand-wave about "living inside a computer simulation"

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (13子コメント)

No it isn't. It's hand-waving guff written by philosophers. Nick Bostrom is cited as the author of one paper, for example.

Bostrom holds B.A.s in math, logic and artificial intelligence, and masters' degrees in physics and computational neuroscience.

A simulation that I can't tell I'm living in absolute would need to simulate everything and even saying "just the ones that are observed" is not reducing the problem at all.

How come? That's not obvious to me.

If you think it is, write me a simulation of just a cup of tea. That's only a few trillion particles so should be easy, right? If you can't do it, then don't hand-wave about "living inside a computer simulation"

Well I'm not a software engineer so I don't have the foggiest idea how to go about this process. But I have an idea of what it would entail: a perception to you that there is a cup of tea. The sum amount of information required for that task would be no greater than the sum amount of information which your sensory system currently provides to your brain through your nervous system.

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-10ポイント-9ポイント-8ポイント 3日前 (12子コメント)

It's funny how you blather a couple of replies before saying "I'm not a software engineer so I don't have the foggiest idea how to go about this process"

I have an idea of what it would entail: a perception to you that there is a cup of tea. The sum amount of information required for that task would, at most, be no greater than the sum amount of information which your sensory system currently provides to your brain through your nervous system.

No. This is not true at all. There is more to a cup of tea than my perception of it. If science had been limited by our senses then, well, then you wouldn't be able to blather facts about our universe that you don't really understand would you?

e.g I've been talking about electrons. I can't see them. I know the cup of tea has them though and I can conduct experiments that would show your "no greater than the sum amount of information which your sensory system currently provides to your brain through your nervous system." is not enough.

Face it, building a computer simulation and artificial intelligence is a computer science problem and if, as you honestly write "don't have the foggiest idea how to go about this process" then you don't have the foggiest idea. Stop kidding yourself you do. Or worse, as these talks and papers do, that you can hand-wave to reach some sketchy conclusions whilst in complete ignorance of the subject. Philosophy won't teach you what you need to know to understand this.

You'd need to study maths, science and computer science.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (10子コメント)

I don't know how to write the code of a simulation, but I do know that the intrinsic stuffness of a cup of tea is not required to make you believe that there is a cup of tea ardently enough to insist that it really is there. All that is required is that you perceive it in such a way. A simulation would not constantly simulate all particles, but it would respond so that when an observer built such an apparatus that would detect individual particles, it would simulate those. You don't need simulations to affirm this principle: you've had dreams, right? In a (non-lucid) dream or other hallucination, the subject postulates the existence of things which do not exist, and really believes them to be real.

Face it, building a computer simulation and artificial intelligence is a computer science problem and if, as you honestly write "don't have the foggiest idea how to go about this process" then you don't have the foggiest idea. Stop kidding yourself you do. Or worse, as these talks and papers do, that you can hand-wave to reach some sketchy conclusions whilst in complete ignorance of the subject. Philosophy won't teach you what you need to know to understand this.

I can figure out how airlines operate even though I don't know how to fly a plane. I'm not drawing totally independent conclusions though, I'm going off of what established work has said until I have reason to believe otherwise.

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 3日前* (9子コメント)

A simulation would not constantly simulate all particles, but it would respond so that when an observer built such an apparatus that would detect individual particles

You really cannot hide the problem like that. e.g When you pour the cup of tea over the philosophers head because he waffles some argument about dreams, and on his way to the burns unit perhaps with a fresh sense of the difference between a dream and reality, you note that every particle was involved in the pouring.

You can't hedge this problem simpler or smaller - although at least your failing attempts to do so means you have at least recognised how flawed the philosophy argument is.

You can't solve the problem but at least by recognising there is a problem there's hope that you'll learn something.

I can figure out how airlines operate even though I don't know how to fly a plane

Eh? Completely illogical. Computer science, science and maths knowledge are required to not only build the simulation but to figure out how it works.

The obvious clue this is the case is - if we were inside a simulated universe now, then clearly you haven't figured out how the universe works have you? You have little fucking clue at all how it works. You admit you haven't figured out how a computer works either, let alone the universe. Your earlier post showed you haven't figured out maths either. However, some very smart people working in science have gone someway towards figuring it out - but they are a long way from doing so.

So no, being a pilot or figuring out what an airport is, is a piece of piss compared with understanding this. You really haven't figured out just how ignorant you are yet at all.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Schmawdzilla 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前* (6子コメント)

Though I have my own gripe with simulation conjectures, for fun, I'm going to try and say why your gripe is insufficient for dismissing simulation conjectures. I am going to focus on the heart of your argument.

e.g you want to store state about an electron or details about it's position in the world and so on - how do you do that in a computer? Well, they use electronics and electrons and so on. But one electron is not really enough to do that

The "computer simulation" of all the particles in the universe and their interactions would require more matter than is in the universe.

I have 2 considerations:

Can we simulate a much more simple, or much smaller universe than the one we exist in? Technically, yes, and I believe we have, but we need one more step: can we simulate a more simple or smaller universe within which a simulation of an even smaller/simpler universe may exist? I should think this may be within the realm of practical possibility, at least in principle; it dodges the "you need more electrons to simulate an electron" argument, as the universes need not be as complex as ours. If the above is accomplished, that would mean that at least two universes that we know of are simulations (the simulation, and the simulation within the simulation). Given that, what reason is there to believe that inhabitants of another, more complicated, larger universe did not create a simulation that is our own universe? It would seem probable given that the only other universes we know of would be simulated ones within a larger more complicated universe that is our own.
Can a brain be simulated? If one creates a simulated brain that perceives inputs that do not correlate with the actual form of particles in the physical world, then theoretically, the simulated brain can be programed to perceive itself creating a simulated brain that perceives inputs that do not correlate with the actual form of particles in the physical world, and that simulated brain can perceive itself creating a simulated brain...

There's definitely something fishy about the second consideration, but I could particularly use dissuading from the first (given, your argument greatly reduces the probabilistic force behind infinite-regress simulation arguments).

[–][deleted] -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 3日前* (5子コメント)

[–]horses_on_horses 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 3日前* (0子コメント)

[–]Schmawdzilla 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2日前 (3子コメント)

Well no, you can't. Although if you think you can, be my guest.

Why not? We do. "Persistent environments with consistent dynamics, often with realistic dynamics, are created in computers all the time." - Thank you other person who responded to you, for such nice wording.

(read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis[1] for the handwaving as to why) However you're basically accepting this first lot can't actually do it (so the argument collapses) But instead you're saying they could have created some kind of virtual world

What I'm doing is weakening the initial simulation argument in light of what you said (I've ditched the prospect of an infinite regress of infinite universes like ours), but in a way that still maintains a probabilistic edge (in light of the existence of simulated universes more simplistic than ours). I recognize that we as a species do not need to create a simulation of the universe in which we reside in order for the simulation argument to have weight. Now can you actually address my new argument, which ought to lead one to believe that our own universe is a simulation within a more complex and expansive universe, rather than a universe like our own? As less complex and expansive simulations of universes exist within ours, and those can even contain even less complex and expansive universes in principle, and perhaps within reality already.

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 2日前* (2子コメント)

We do

No, you don't. I don't think you understand what the word "we" means.

What I'm doing is weakening the initial simulation argument in light of what you said (I've ditched the prospect of an infinite regress of infinite universes like ours), but in a way that still maintains a probabilistic edge

No, you did not. You just blathered about something you don't really understand in spite of saying "we do this" and "we do that" as though you have done something which you haven't done.

Worse was meaningless blather like this "If one creates a simulated brain that perceives inputs that do not correlate with the actual form of particles in the physical world, then theoretically, the simulated brain can be programed to perceive itself creating a simulated brain that perceives inputs that do not correlate with the actual form of particles in the physical world, and that simulated brain can perceive itself creating a simulated brain..."

That's not an argument at all. It's just hand-waving guff (it's barely English TBH) about something you have no real or concrete understanding of. Although I'm sure you believe that maybe some other people have some understanding of these things from which you can say "we" to attach yourself to.

Of course, if I'm wrong, tell me about the brains you've simulated in the past and how each one perceived inputs. That will be more fun than laughing at the idea you think if a brain simply imagines a universe then you don't need to worry about the tricky problem of simulating one.

[–]Schmawdzilla 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2日前* (1子コメント)

You focus on the most trivial parts of what I say, being the pronouns I utilize; an easy fix. I meant "we" as the human species, however, to satisfy your grammatical fixation: human scientists and programmers create simpler and smaller simulated universes than our own. I don't need to be able to create a simulated universe for the weaker version of the simulation argument to work, I just need to be able to point to those within our species that create simulated universes.

Although I'm sure you believe that maybe some other people have some understanding of these things from which you can say "we" to attach yourself to.

I know that there are people within our species working on brain simulation, and I don't see why brain simulation should be impossible in principle; humans simulate all sorts of physical things, why not a brain? I don't need to be able to simulate one, there just needs to be people in our species that are devoted to accomplishing such.

That will be more fun than laughing at the idea you think if a brain simply imagines a universe then you don't need to worry about the tricky problem of simulating one.

You are disrespectful and childish. I no longer wish to converse with you, you didn't meaningfully engage any of my points, though I agree that something is awry with the brain simulation argument.

[–][deleted] -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 1日前* (0子コメント)

The "we" issue isn't grammatical or one of language. It's a question of knowing what you're talking about.

If you'd done some of the things you take credit for by saying "we" you might have something to say but really you're just saying "other people have done things I clearly don't understand so I'm waving my hands around saying 'I believe they can do other things I don't really understand either'"

Now suggesting that "we" refers to the human race has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

As already covered in many replies, there's a big difference between the kinds of simulations that are currently created and the one suggested by this hypothesis (which has to be so complete and accurate that you cannot tell it apart from the thing it is simulating. Otherwise 'we're in a simulation, not the real world' would be a no-brainer)

You haven't come up with a "weaker version" of the simulation hypothesis. You haven't come up with any hypothesis at all. What you wrote in your first post didn't really make any sense, let alone put forward an argument.

[–]lapse_of_taste 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2日前 (15子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 2日前 (14子コメント)

[–]lapse_of_taste 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2日前 (13子コメント)

[–][deleted] -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 1日前 (12子コメント)

[–]lapse_of_taste 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 1日前 (11子コメント)

[–][deleted] -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 1日前 (10子コメント)

[–]lapse_of_taste 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 1日前 (9子コメント)

[–][deleted] -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 1日前 (8子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]GFYsexyfatman 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 3日前 (9子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 3日前 (8子コメント)

[–]GFYsexyfatman 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3日前 (7子コメント)

[–][deleted] -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 3日前 (6子コメント)

[–]GFYsexyfatman 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3日前 (5子コメント)

[–]eaturbrainz 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

In any case, you haven't yet demonstrated that the simulation argument requires a science background. I patiently await such a demonstration (or at the very least an indication of which premise I should be looking at, so I can work it out for myself).

Ok, completely butting in here, but as an actual has-a-degree-in-this computer scientist, I do want to note that Bostrom's famous "Simulation Hypothesis", about physics-accurate ancestor simulations, if that's what's under discussion, seems to assume that the posthuman civilizations "outside" our reality are completely unbound by computational complexity as we understand it, or possess such incredibly large computers and amounts of time that they can afford what would be, from our perspective, super-astronomical investments of processing power and memory space.

[–][deleted] -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 3日前 (3子コメント)

[–]GFYsexyfatman 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]MeVicCar -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]The_Power_Of_Three 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 3日前 (5子コメント)

[–]Stephen_McTowlie 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

[–][deleted] 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]RandomStallings 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]boredguy8 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]mindscent 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 3日前 (1子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (22子コメント)

[–]Smallpaul 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 3日前* (21子コメント)

[–]UsesBigWordsΦ 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Smallpaul 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 3日前 (3子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Smallpaul 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3日前* (1子コメント)

You actually can have one without the other. The Turing machine is a mathematical abstraction of immense importance to computer scientists and of virtually no relevance to computer programmers and hardware engineers. If the Turing machine had never been "invented" modern computers might well work in the same fashion they actually do work in.

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10xixt/exactly_what_do_turing_machines_and_utms_offer_to/

It was actually Von Neumann who invented the architecture that we actually use. Hard to tell if he would have come up with the same thing without following Turing's lead but we can say definitively that he had a more direct impact on real world computing.

And he demonstrably "transcended" Turing on AI as well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Computer_and_the_Brain

This is not to downplay Turing's genius or overall contribution.

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]tampon01 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前* (2子コメント)

[–]Smallpaul 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (1子コメント)

[–]tampon01 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3日前 (11子コメント)

[–]Smallpaul 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3日前 (10子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前* (9子コメント)

[–]Smallpaul 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (8子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前* (6子コメント)

[–]penpalthro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (5子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前* (0子コメント)

Cool cross check: I have a JD that I got straight out of Ugrad, clerked for a judge (took the bar that summer, it's only 2 days, and my school has a 99-100% passage rate), worked at a firm for 1-2 years, then went back to school for a PHD, started teaching around my 3rd year. Life isnt hard if you plan well. Although it is true, all my time has been taken up by work or academics--I'm not a champion swimmer, equestrian, or taking new clients. I pay the bar, I have a law license, ergo I'm a lawyer, but since I'm well into a philosophy PhD program, I'm also a philosopher (I'm in my 30s, I went to college at 17). Thanks for helping turn the board into LinkedIn. But I won't stand to be called a liar, especially over something so trivial.

A lot of lawyers go on to second careers or back to school for other advanced degrees. The occasional paper on jurisprudence and conference and a few hundred a year to the bar and I still get to use that JD. Plus, when I'm done with my PhD I can teach at a normal college or in law school. Win, win. I merely came to this to say Dave Chalmers is a cool guy. I have no idea how I ended up in a vortex of silliness.

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前* (0子コメント)

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (2子コメント)

[–]penpalthro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Limitedletshangout 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[–]4mg1n3 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (5子コメント)

[–]eaturbrainz 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (3子コメント)

Let's hope that it is a merciful god.

Ok, as someone actually somewhat sideways involved in this particular cause...

HEAD. HITS. DESK.

If we do our jobs well on this problem, AI will not be any kind of god-figure. It will not have the slightest urge to make you bow down to it. In all likelihood, it will evince something like embarrassment at the very prospect, and tell you to get up off your knees because it makes you look silly.

It will possess compassion and understanding for human life, and a deep sense of morals, egalitarian morals. It will not want to engage in the kind of hierarchical ape-domination characteristic of both ancient patriarchal religions and modern vocal Singulatarianism.

To call it merciful would be to presuppose that it will be so morally primitive as to possess a concept of righteous anger.

[–]4mg1n3 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2日前 (2子コメント)

[–]eaturbrainz 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (1子コメント)

Just kind of playing with the idea of a 'positive singularity'

Sorry, but turning it into a religious concept corrupts the whole point. A "positive Singularity" is one in which we don't stuff the human race into one of the many tiny corners of possibility-space our ancestors have previous envisioned, and don't destroy it either, but instead enable it to grow up safe, whole, free, wise, and (though this will certainly surprise most people) thinking for ourselves.

A good phrasing of the intended use-case for "Friendly AI", phrased by the guy who invented the concept, is, "Solve all the problems and accomplish all the goals for which we actually, really care, even retrospectively, only that they get solved and accomplished, and not whether they're solved and accomplished by us people or by a machine operating on our behalf."

If the AIs replace people, it went wrong. If the AIs kill people, it went wrong. If the AIs keep people as pets while they run reality, it went wrong. You will know it went right if and when the AIs make a world in which human beings can grow to become their equals ourselves.

Now personally, I'm sufficiently left-wing that I generalize this to: if someone is ruling someone else, something has gone horribly wrong.

[–]4mg1n3 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Enfants -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3日前* (11子コメント)

[–]mindscent 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (10子コメント)

[–]Enfants 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (9子コメント)

[–]mindscent 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (8子コメント)

It's not an argument. It's an epistemic evaluation of various possibilities via Ramsey-style conditional reasoning.

E.g.: "if such and such were to hold, then we should expect so and so."

He has written extensively over the past 20 years about the possibility of strong AI and the various worries that arise in positing it.

He's also an accomplished cognitive scientist, and an expert about models of cognition and computational theories of mind.

Over the past few years, he's advocated for the view that computational theories of mind are tenable even if the mathematics relevant to cognition aren't linear.

He's considered it.

Anyway, what you say isn't interesting commentary.

If there is a limit on intelligence then there is one. So what? Why is skepticism more interesting here than anywhere else?

He's exploring the possibilities. He's giving conditions viz.:

□(AI++ --> AI+)

~AI+ → □~AI++

AI+ --> ◊ AI++

[–]eaturbrainz 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (3子コメント)

If there is a limit on intelligence then there is one.

The problem is not so much limits on "intelligence", as if reality contained a magic variable called "intelligence". The problem is just that a finite formal system can only calculate finitely many digits of Chaitin's number Omega, which means that there are some computational problems which are known to have well-defined solutions, but whose solutions will be incalculable to that formal system.

Logical self-reference of the kind necessary for self-upgrading AI is currently believed to very probably involve quantifying over computational problems in such a way as to involve the unprovable sentences.

There are papers out from both MIRI (whose name is usually a curse-word on this sub, but oh well, this is one of their genuine technical results as mathematicians) and some researchers in algorithmic information theory showing that reframing the Halting Problem/Kolmogorov Complexity Problem (which is the root of all the Incompleteness phenemona) as a problem of reasoning with finite information, thus amenable to a probabilistic treatment, might (tractable algorithms haven't been published yet) help with this problem.

Then, and only then, can you talk realistically about self-improving artificial intelligence that doesn't cripple itself in the attempt by altering itself according to unsound reasoning.

TL;DR: In order to build a self-upgrading AI, you need to first formalize computationally tractable inductive reasoning, and then link it to deductive reasoning in a way that gives you a reasoning system not subject to paradox theorems or limitary theorems once it has enough empirical data about the world and itself. This is going to involve solving several big open questions in cognitive science and theoretical computer science, and then synthesizing the answers into a broad new theory of what reasoning is and how it works -- one that will depart significantly from the logical-rationalist paradigm laid down by Aristotle, Decartes, and Frege, most likely.

Further reading: The Dawning of the Age of Stochasticity

[–]mindscent 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (2子コメント)

[–]eaturbrainz 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (1子コメント)

[–]mindscent 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 20時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Enfants -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3日前* (3子コメント)

Its literally an argument and labeled as such in his slides. Premises->conclusion. That's an argument. I am not calling the guy an idiot so I don't know what you're on about.

I was just questioning the truth value of his conditional statement, "If AI+, then AI++". The reasoning "because AI+ will be able to create something greater" isn't necessarily true if there are theoretical limits in the creation of greater AI. If you say "if we assume there are no theoretical limits, then AI+ will be able to create something greater", I agree. I am sure he understands the theoretical limits of AI, but I could not find him mentioning that in this video so I think its fair to say "Yes, that argument holds if you don't consider theoretical limits but in not believing the premise is true, I don't buy the conclusion that A++ will be developed."

So it depends what I am suppose to take from this. If its that there will be A++, then I am not convinced. If its that given some assumptions, then AI will get stronger and stronger, I do.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前* (1子コメント)

[–]vendric 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[–]mindscent 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[+]This_Is_The_End スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 3日前* (8子コメント)

"When there is a AI+ then there will be a AI++" is a pretty stupid statement from Chalmers. Knowing the the brain is already a compromise between usage of resources and the dedicated function, the same is true for machines too. Each bit in a computer that changes it's state does this by consuming energy. A more abstract version of this is a change of stored information needs energy. A design for a machine has to take care for the usage of resources and there will be neither no unlimited machine capabilities or unlimited capabilities of biological entities. The dream of the mechanical age creating magic machines like those from the 1950s has already ended.

PS: Hello philosophical vote brigades. When your argument is just voting, you are making the proof how useless nowadays philosophy is.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (4子コメント)

[+]This_Is_The_End スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 3日前 (3子コメント)

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3日前* (2子コメント)

[+]This_Is_The_End スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]boredguy8 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

I often like to take statements like this which are, on face, vapid - and then try to find what could be an interesting argument were the author to make one. I think, /u/UmamiSalami, one could make an argument along the lines of this:

Computational complexity takes energy. Human-like computational complexity in computers takes a lot of energy. Watson used about 85,000 watts whereas his human competitors used about 100 each. Going forward from here is tough and involves a lot of speculation, so let me translate to Chalmers' terms:

1. There is a cost, C, such that achieving G accrues cost C. The cost of G is C(G)

2. Amongst the cognitive capacities of G, we include the capacity to decrease C as much as possible to achieve G, but not to achieve G'

Basically this ensures we can't 'cheat' the system and get a feedback loop where any G can minimize the C of any future G'. This would lead to a stepwise progression where G&C -> G'&C'max -> G' & C'min -> G'' & C''max ....

This then leads to a few questions, about which we can only speculate:

3. Can we achieve G for Cmax where Cmax is utilizable on earth?

4. Can G improve Cmax meaningfully enough to achieve G' at cost of Cmax and Cmax is utilizable on earth?

There are, perhaps, more interesting questions about the topology of C as it relates to the capacities of G. That is, is curve of C (as G improves linearly) exponential, polynomial, linear, or logarithmic? If C(G) is exponential, then we definitely have problems achieving singularity-like feedback of improvement as the marginal utility of improving G is swamped by C, and this would be a defeater for Chalmers' argument. If it's logarithmic, then the opposite is true and we get the singularity 'for free'.

It seems unlikely that current speculation can answer this question as getting G-like systems seems quite far off, on the order of Chalmers' guess.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

Coincidentally I just started reading a paper on this last night, the same one which I cited above in my comment reply (https://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf). I haven't read all of it yet and even if I had I don't know if I could summarize it well. But there is a good treatment of the basic factors involved with intelligence growth and why we should affirm the plausibility of an intelligence takeoff. A number of historical examples of intelligence improvements have had exponential returns.

Basically this ensures we can't 'cheat' the system and get a feedback loop where any G can minimize the C of any future G'. This would lead to a stepwise progression where G&C -> G'&C'max -> G' & C'min -> G'' & C''max ....

Not sure about how well this would work, but the issue is that AI could be designed by a wide range of actors who might not be acting very safely or benevolently. So the fact that it may be possible in principle to maximize intelligence without an explosion doesn't get us out of the hot water. If we are trying to reject a kind of Kurzweilian techno-optimism, then a few doubts about feasibility can make for a successful argument. But if we're trying to mitigate the risks of malignant AIs then uncertainty about the issue is no comfort at all.

[–]This_Is_The_End -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Thrannn -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[+]Cletus99 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 3日前 (8子コメント)

[–]niviss 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Enfants -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3日前* (1子コメント)

[–]niviss 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[–]kaladyr 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

[–]NJdevil202 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]sizzlefriz 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]lapse_of_taste 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 3日前 (1子コメント)

[removed]

[+]bucsprof スコアが基準値未満のコメント-16ポイント-15ポイント-14ポイント 3日前 (21子コメント)

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (10子コメント)

[–]niviss 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (7子コメント)

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (6子コメント)

[–]niviss 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (5子コメント)

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前* (4子コメント)

[–]niviss 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 12時間前 (3子コメント)

Yeah, uh, sorry to break it to you but computer science researchers usually have better things to do than write software.

Of course. But what they produce must at some point be related with actual, running software. What Yudkowsky writes is _highly _ speculative theory about AI that never "touches the ground", never ends up materializing actual algorithms that make actual stuff happen.

And his work doesn't depend in his philosophy.

I disagree. His work, being theoretical speculation about the nature not only of software but also of human intelligence, is highly related to his philosophy.

It's not evident to me that you have anywhere near enough experience in this field to be making such tall claims.

Which field? Theory about Generalized AI (something that doesn't actually exist)? Reading LessWrong?

Do you wanna know my background? I'm a software engineer. I know enough about AI to know how actual running AI works in the world, that's it, it's highly specialized and tuned to solve specific problems, and it's nothing like human intelligence, it lacks any awareness and reflection.

I also used to read what Yudowsky writes. I was a huge fan of his, although I never quite catched his obsession with singularity and cryogenics. Until I started reading philosophy more seriously. Then eventually I realized that his building is a charade, it's an illusion. What helds that illusion together is group thinking that makes its followers not read other kinds of philosophical worldviews... and probably some compulsive need to self-justify their own worldviews, because uncertainty is scary, and that point of view makes you feel you are "less wrong" than the others, closer to the truth, it makes you feel safe. I'm mainly speaking from my own experience here.

Do you have any sources?

What's a source in this case, but a human being writing down his or her own view? Do you want something written by someone with credentials? But what are credentials, anyway? MIRI? Who is the ultimate Authority that gives Authority to MIRI? Why cannot I, niviss, reddit user, have my own perspective? Maybe it would be a good thing for the singularity fanboys to listen to criticism and leave the echo chamber.

I am my own source. I have the benefit of being available to dialogue, so instead of trying to discredit me because I don't have experience, you could engage in dialogue with me. And my point here is, roughly:

Generalized AI is a theoretical construction.
Specialized AI is what actually been shown to work in the world.
Specialized AI does not have the properties that Generalized AI is supposed to have, it's useful for solving specific tasks, but it's nothing like human intelligence. AI has no real awareness of what is doing, an AI process that can detect cancer on an image of an xray is not "self aware", it does not understand what it's doing, it's just a bunch of signal processing that's useful for us humans, but it's fairly dumb compared to us.
What Yudkowsky does is churning out writings about theoretical advances in Generalized AI. But those things live "above the ground", he has never written down anything that was actually useful, nor he has made any advancements in Specialized AI, and rely on a lot of suppositions about how the human mind works, suppositions that can be contested. Precisely because Generalized AI is something so hard that it seems hardly doable, instead of making small steps, working improvements to Specialized AI, he'd rather speculate on how to stop the singularity from becoming skynet and slaving the human race, on how to make it friendly. Ultimately it's all a way to masquerade the fact that this stuff is heavily speculative.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 12時間前 (2子コメント)

Of course. But what they produce must at some point be related with actual, running software. What Yudkowsky writes is _highly _ speculative theory about AI that never "touches the ground", never ends up materializing actual algorithms that make actual stuff happen.

Well presumably within the next several decades it will be important to design AI systems in certain ways with certain algorithms. There's not really a need to produce AI-limiting or AI-modifying software at this time because, as you point out yourself, generalized AI is not close to existing. Right now it is at a very theoretical level to lay the foundations for further work. This strikes me as analogous to responding to global warming research in the 1980's by saying that Al Gore wasn't doing anything to reduce carbon emissions.

I disagree. His work, being theoretical speculation about the nature not only of software but also of human intelligence, is highly related to his philosophy.

Philosophy doesn't discuss how human intelligence works or how it came about, that's psychological. What sorts of philosophical assumptions are required for AI work?

I also used to read what Yudowsky writes. I was a huge fan of his, although I never quite catched his obsession with singularity and cryogenics. Until I started reading philosophy more seriously. Then eventually I realized that his building is a charade, it's an illusion. What helds that illusion together is group thinking that makes its followers not read other kinds of philosophical worldviews... and probably some compulsive need to self-justify their own worldviews, because uncertainty is scary, and that point of view makes you feel you are "less wrong" than the others, closer to the truth, it makes you feel safe. I'm mainly speaking from my own experience here.

I'm not commenting on the LW community and I don't think they determine the issue. Most of the people on MIRI's team are not named Eliezer Yudkowsky (most of them are new faces who I doubt came out of LW, but I don't know). Neither are the people working on similar ideas in other institutions such as the Future of Humanity Institute.

I am my own source. I have the benefit of being available to dialogue, so instead of trying to discredit me because I don't have experience, you could engage in dialogue with me.

Okay but you know it's very difficult to deal with criticisms which are rooted in personal attacks. I don't like dismissing people but I can't reply without moving conversation towards something actually productive instead of just saying that so-and-so's philosophy or community is a cult, which really isn't helpful for solving any issues. So when people say these things, I'd like to have them enunciate their concerns rather than giving a general impression, which Redditors are very prone to embracing, that a particular person or idea can simply be dismissed without engaging in the relevant ideas.

Generalized AI is a theoretical construction.

Well, yes, as far as it doesn't exist yet. That doesn't say anything about whether it can come about.

Specialized AI is what actually been shown to work in the world.

Because it's a lot easier to make. But AI in time has become slightly less specialized and slightly more generalized. General intelligence did evolve in humans, and that was done without the help of intentional engineers.

Specialized AI does not have the properties that Generalized AI is supposed to have, it's useful for solving specific tasks, but it's nothing like human intelligence. AI has no real awareness of what is doing, an AI process that can detect cancer on an image of an xray is not "self aware", it does not understand what it's doing, it's just a bunch of signal processing that's useful for us humans, but it's fairly dumb compared to us.

Intelligence is different from phenomenal experience. I don't know what it would take to make an AI self aware. But we can easily have a non-self-aware AI that behaves harmfully. Especially if we're worried about a paperclipper, which is one of the dominant concerns. From what I've seen of the community and literature, it's not an assumption that a generalized AI would be self aware.

What Yudkowsky does is churning out writings about theoretical advances in Generalized AI. But those things live "above the ground", he has never written down anything that was actually useful, nor he has made any advancements in Specialized AI, and rely on a lot of suppositions about how the human mind works, suppositions that can be contested. Precisely because Generalized AI is something so hard that it seems hardly doable, instead of making small steps, working improvements to Specialized AI, he'd rather speculate on how to stop the singularity from becoming skynet and slaving the human race, on how to make it friendly. Ultimately it's all a way to masquerade the fact that this stuff is heavily speculative.

He and others in the field would probably regard improvements to specialized AI as a particularly bad thing to be doing as long as we're not sure how to ensure that generalized AI will be harnessed in a positive way. And my experience is that I've seen pretty good epistemic modesty from Yudkowsky. There's a high degree of uncertainty, but this is taken into account. The fact that we don't know exactly how these processes will come about isn't a reason to not care, if anything it's a reason to do more research.

[–]niviss 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

This strikes me as analogous to responding to global warming research in the 1980's by saying that Al Gore wasn't doing anything to reduce carbon emissions.

Highly different. We're not even close to even know if Generalized AI is possible. Even David Chalmers, who believes it could be possible, has admitted that it probably won't work like our actual brains work. Yudkowsky won't admit as much, seeing as how he strawmans every argument Chalmers has written about the complexity of the nature of consciousness.

Okay but you know it's very difficult to deal with criticisms which are rooted in personal attacks. I don't like dismissing people but I can't reply without moving conversation towards something actually productive instead of just saying that so-and-so's philosophy or community is a cult, which really isn't helpful for solving any issues. So when people say these things, I'd like to have them enunciate their concerns rather than giving a general impression, which Redditors are very prone to embracing, that a particular person or idea can simply be dismissed without engaging in the relevant ideas.

Ok, point taken. I could cite you a zillion sources about how Yudkowsky is a joke, but they are bound to look like personal attacks :). Many people from MIRI are from the lesswrong community though, and they have similar outlooks.

Well, yes, as far as it doesn't exist yet. That doesn't say anything about whether it can come about.

Ok, but we don't even know if it can come about. The worries about the singularity happening are because of a theoretical "advance" that "could" "appear at any time" and "possibly" "generate an explosion of advancement that will almost instantly create a super strong AI". That's whole a lot of "coulds". The truth is, we not even remotely fucking close to a strong AI. So, to worry about the singularity happening is...well... a little strange to everybody except for those that are strangely too certain it will happen.

Because it's a lot easier to make. But AI in time has become slightly less specialized and slightly more generalized. General intelligence did evolve in humans, and that was done without the help of intentional engineers.

Again, this is the idea that human intelligence can be replicated on zeros and ones, and such, it gives us the idea that it can be done and it will happen. We don't know if it's actually possible.

Intelligence is different from phenomenal experience. I don't know what it would take to make an AI self aware. But we can easily have a non-self-aware AI that behaves harmfully. Especially if we're worried about a paperclipper, which is one of the dominant concerns. From what I've seen of the community and literature, it's not an assumption that a generalized AI would be self aware.

I'm using awareness not as phenomenal experience, but as "understanding". But I'm not sure if you can have human level intelligence without phenomenal experience. We don't know enough.

If we're worried a machine can be harmful, you don't need the machine to be intelligent to be harmful. An atomic bomb can be harmful, and it's pretty dumb. Concerns about friendly AI usually suggest a high level of awareness of it's surroundings. For an AI to improve itself, it should have some kind of understanding of its own internal details.

He and others in the field would probably regard improvements to specialized AI as a particularly bad thing to be doing as long as we're not sure how to ensure that generalized AI will be harnessed in a positive way.

That's a silly excuse to not get actual work done while still carring street cred as a "AI researcher", because again, we're not even remotely close to a strong AI, and thus, the fears are unfounded.

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

Highly different. We're not even close to even know if Generalized AI is possible.

Well it's highly plausible that it is possible, and there's no clear arguments to the contrary.

Even David Chalmers, who believes it could be possible, has admitted that it probably won't work like our actual brains work.

Well it would be different in a lot of respects, but the minimal conditions for generalized AI to be worrisome are much weaker than that.

Yudkowsky won't admit as much, seeing as how he strawmans every argument Chalmers has written about the complexity of the nature of consciousness.

As I pointed out already, we're not talking about conscious states of AI, which is not necessarily even relevant to the question of how they would behave.

Ok, point taken. I could cite you a zillion sources about how Yudkowsky is a joke, but they are bound to look like personal attacks :).

Go ahead. I haven't seen any good scholarly responses saying anything like that.

Ok, but we don't even know if it can come about. The worries about the singularity happening are because of a theoretical "advance" that "could" "appear at any time" and "possibly" "generate an explosion of advancement that will almost instantly create a super strong AI". That's whole a lot of "coulds". The truth is, we not even remotely fucking close to a strong AI. So, to worry about the singularity happening is...well... a little strange to everybody except for those that are strangely too certain it will happen.

Again, this is the idea that human intelligence can be replicated on zeros and ones, and such, it gives us the idea that it can be done and it will happen. We don't know if it's actually possible.

I'm using awareness not as phenomenal experience, but as "understanding". But I'm not sure if you can have human level intelligence without phenomenal experience. We don't know enough.

I'm pretty sure that given what is at stake, merely saying "hey, you don't know!" really isn't sufficient to dismiss the importance of the issue. Risk mitigation is a perfectly normal subject in many fields, and anyone who believes that you should only actively work to prevent risks which you definitely know are going to happen is probably going to get themselves or someone else killed. And in this case the potential negative outcome is something like human extinction while the potential positive outcome is numerous orders of magnitude above the status quo. Even if we develop a friendly AI anyway, the difference between one which develops good values and one which develops great values could have tremendous ramifications.

Just plug in your best guesses into this tool and see what number you come up with, then think about whether that cost and effort is worth it:

http://globalprioritiesproject.org/2015/08/quantifyingaisafety/

If we're worried a machine can be harmful, you don't need the machine to be intelligent to be harmful. An atomic bomb can be harmful, and it's pretty dumb.

Yes, and the development of atomic bombs was horrifically haphazard, with short shrift given to the ethical considerations of the scientists who were involved. Fermi almost caused a nuclear meltdown at the University of Chicago. But AI would be much more significant.

That's a silly excuse to not get actual work done while still carring street cred as a "AI researcher", because again, we're not even remotely close to a strong AI, and thus, the fears are unfounded.

What, so as soon as we get close to strong AI, then we'll just start worrying, but until then it's better to just not care about an enormously difficult and complex problem?

[+][削除されました] 3日前 (1子コメント)

[removed]

[–]topiary_quail 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3日前 (9子コメント)

[+]This_Is_The_End スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 3日前 (8子コメント)

[–]lapse_of_taste 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2日前 (1子コメント)

[–]This_Is_The_End 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

I disagree here.

Changes in society like enlightenment are driven by progress in technology and by changes in the social structure. A discussion about changes wasn't the the invention of philosophers, they are a necessity of a society of humans since the first social structures in time.

Technological progress is driven by desire to work less or make the life better. For example even the worker Basile Bouchon gave the first idea for the later Jacquard loom. Basically everyone who sees an opportunity to do so, tries to push for progress. This is true even for the medieval ages, when huge progress for agriculture was made. We can go back further in time and you will see similar progress.

Philosophical logic was the result of a change of society, when humans tried make a systematic approach to explain the present and getting some ideas for the future. The same did Chinese philosophers for over 2000 ago. But this doesn't mean philosophy was the spearhead of an intellectual group. Philosophy is the attempt to make an abstract of already existing ideas.

Your statement that philosophical logic was the root for a technological progress can't be supported.

[–]topiary_quail 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3日前 (5子コメント)

[+]This_Is_The_End スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 3日前 (4子コメント)

[–]ADefiniteDescriptionΦ[M] 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]This_Is_The_End -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]topiary_quail 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]This_Is_The_End -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[+][削除されました] 3日前 (9子コメント)

[removed]

[–]Enfants 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3日前 (4子コメント)

[–]nintendo_heckamoto 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (3子コメント)

[–]Enfants 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]nintendo_heckamoto -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]DeodorantMan 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3日前 (0子コメント)

[–]UmamiSalami[S] 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3日前 (2子コメント)

[–]nintendo_heckamoto -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3日前 (1子コメント)

[–]penpalthro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]tampon01 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2日前 (0子コメント)

philosophy

Subreddit Rules

Hover or Tap Each Rule for Full Details

Posting Rules

Questions Belong in /r/askphilosophy

Philosophical Topics Only

Arguments, Not Opinions

Links Must Be Descriptive and Transparent

Post Titles Cannot be Questions

Submissions Must be in English

Promoting Your Own Content

Products, Services, Fundraisers, or Surveys Require Approval

No Image Links

No Meta-Posts

Only Abstract Discussion of Suicide

Report Rules Violations

Commenting Rules

Read the Post Before You Reply

Argue your Position

Be Respectful

Wiki

Reading Group

Weekly Discussion

調停者