‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

AI has no intent and no motivation

48 points · 61 comments · aquastorm

  1. timr · · focus · HN ↗
    It's pointless to make rational arguments about this. The other side is using arguments of faith, and will Gish Gallop past any logic.

    At the very least, you run into the same logical fallacy that has underpinned all discussions of AI: over-extrapolation.

    "Sure, it doesn't have intent or motivation TODAY, but at the current pace of improvement...."

    But the current top-rated comment is already asserting that motivation is not required, because microorganisms also exist and do things and (presumably) do not have intent. So you can see that the well of logical fallacies behind this particular apocalyptic belief system is quite deep.

    1. dist-epoch · · focus · HN ↗
      You are a bunch of atoms which respects the laws of physics. With a PhD in computational biology surely you must know that. You have no intent. Nothing ever has had any intent.

      Please point out my logical fallacy if any.

      1. timr · · focus · HN ↗
        "I think thing X is like thing Y in aspect A, so therefore X is like Y in aspect B."
        1. dist-epoch · · focus · HN ↗
          Good example of "proof by assertion"

          "I can describe a fallacy that vaguely resembles your argument, so therefore your argument commits that fallacy."

          1. timr · · focus · HN ↗
            No, your argument literally commits the fallacy. Or it's just a non-sequitur about intent, in which case, cool. Feel free to have opinions on that.
            1. dist-epoch · · focus · HN ↗
              You are again asserting my argument commits a fallacy without showing how.

              Here, a simple example if what I say above is hard to follow:

              > "I think thing X is like thing Y in aspect A, so therefore X is like Y in aspect B."

              12 and 18 are alike in that both are greater than 10, so they are also alike in being greater than 5.

              Please show where is the fallacy above, it can be mathematically proven and it has the shape of the fallacy you imply.

              My argument having the shape of this fallacy does not imply it is a fallacy.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.