I want to make a snowclone thread called "Holy Mountain except it's about Eliezer Yudkowsky" but I know too little about both to write a coherent joke.
I want to make a snowclone thread called "Holy Mountain except it's about Eliezer Yudkowsky" but I know too little about both to write a coherent joke.
You can have some fun with people whose anticipations get out of sync with what they believe they believe.
I was once at a dinner party, trying to explain to a man what I did for a living, when he said: "I don't believe Artificial Intelligence is possible because only God can make a soul."
At this point I must have been divinely inspired, because I instantly responded: "You mean if I can make an Artificial Intelligence, it proves your religion is false?"
He said, "What?"
I said, "Well, if your religion predicts that I can't possibly make an Artificial Intelligence, then, if I make an Artificial Intelligence, it means your religion is false. Either your religion allows that it might be possible for me to build an AI; or, if I build an AI, that disproves your religion."
There was a pause, as the one realized he had just made his hypothesis vulnerable to falsification, and then he said, "Well, I didn't mean that you couldn't make an intelligence, just that it couldn't be emotional in the same way we are."
I said, "So if I make an Artificial Intelligence that, without being deliberately preprogrammed with any sort of script, starts talking about an emotional life that sounds like ours, that means your religion is wrong."
He said, "Well, um, I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this."
I said: "No, we can't, actually. There's a theorem of rationality called Aumann's Agreement Theorem which shows that no two rationalists can agree to disagree. If two people disagree with each other, at least one of them must be doing something wrong."
We went back and forth on this briefly. Finally, he said, "Well, I guess I was really trying to say that I don't think you can make something eternal."
I said, "Well, I don't think so either! I'm glad we were able to reach agreement on this, as Aumann's Agreement Theorem requires." I stretched out my hand, and he shook it, and then he wandered away.
A woman who had stood nearby, listening to the conversation, said to me gravely, "That was beautiful."
My response, were I the religious person, would be that I might be forced to reassess that particular detail of my faith, but given that I cannot presume to know God's ways, it could just as well be assumed that while the framework for the soul may be fabricated by man, it is God that permits it life and spirit.
I don't really get why religious people can't think outside the box like that. But then, if they believe that AI can't exist because of Jesus then they probably have their own set of curious mental blocks.
I don't really get why religious people can't think outside the box like that. But then, if they believe that AI can't exist because of Jesus then they probably have their own set of curious mental blocks.
My response, were I the religious person, would be that I might be forced to reassess that particular detail of my faith, but given that I cannot presume to know God's ways, it could just as well be assumed that while the framework for the soul may be fabricated by man, it is God that permits it life and spirit.
I don't really get why religious people can't think outside the box like that. But then, if they believe that AI can't exist because of Jesus then they probably have their own set of curious mental blocks.
My theory is that none of this happened, and Eliezer just wrote down what he wished he'd said instead of "PigFUCK"
well the Warforged in the original Eberron setting actually do have their own religion. Two, actually. the whole Lord of Blades thing and the Church Of The Becoming God.
Comments
I was once at a dinner party, trying to explain to a man what I did for a living, when he said: "I don't believe Artificial Intelligence is possible because only God can make a soul."
At this point I must have been divinely inspired, because I instantly responded: "You mean if I can make an Artificial Intelligence, it proves your religion is false?"
He said, "What?"
I said, "Well, if your religion predicts that I can't possibly make an Artificial Intelligence, then, if I make an Artificial Intelligence, it means your religion is false. Either your religion allows that it might be possible for me to build an AI; or, if I build an AI, that disproves your religion."
There was a pause, as the one realized he had just made his hypothesis vulnerable to falsification, and then he said, "Well, I didn't mean that you couldn't make an intelligence, just that it couldn't be emotional in the same way we are."
I said, "So if I make an Artificial Intelligence that, without being deliberately preprogrammed with any sort of script, starts talking about an emotional life that sounds like ours, that means your religion is wrong."
He said, "Well, um, I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this."
I said: "No, we can't, actually. There's a theorem of rationality called Aumann's Agreement Theorem which shows that no two rationalists can agree to disagree. If two people disagree with each other, at least one of them must be doing something wrong."
We went back and forth on this briefly. Finally, he said, "Well, I guess I was really trying to say that I don't think you can make something eternal."
I said, "Well, I don't think so either! I'm glad we were able to reach agreement on this, as Aumann's Agreement Theorem requires." I stretched out my hand, and he shook it, and then he wandered away.
A woman who had stood nearby, listening to the conversation, said to me gravely, "That was beautiful."
"Thank you very much," I said.
I don't really get why religious people can't think outside the box like that. But then, if they believe that AI can't exist because of Jesus then they probably have their own set of curious mental blocks.