Top
Best
New

Posted by Brajeshwar 1 day ago

Big AI labs are hiring philosophers(www.economist.com)
https://archive.is/T1FJG
148 points | 133 commentspage 4
dominotw 1 day ago|
my comment from 12 yrs ago came true lol

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8517186

take that top responder

> From philosophy? Are you kidding? There's simply no way AI is ever going to come from a bunch of people arguing over what is "qualia" and what is "consciousness

burner00aa00 1 day ago||
[dead]
yrnurn 18 hours ago||
[dead]
spacebacon 17 hours ago||
[dead]
llbbdd 1 day ago||
I think, therefore I am seeking 2.5m total comp
dang 1 day ago||
Please don't post snarky one-liners here. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
anigbrowl 1 day ago|||
That was funny, and not at anyone else's expense so it doesn't qualify as snark.
dang 1 day ago||
That's a fine distinction about snark which I will have to think about.

The comment itself just joins two clichés. That is too obvious and shallow to be interesting, and you can't be funny without being interesting.

aspenmayer 23 hours ago||
Joining two cliches: $1

Knowing which two cliches to join: $2.49M

llbbdd 1 day ago|||
My bad, I meant for this to come off more funny than snarky. Appreciate the check.

EDIT: Upon finishing reading the other comments on this article though...I feel a bit singled out. :)

dang 1 day ago|||
Definitely not singling you out! probably the other comments were posted later, or I didn't see them for some other reason.
gizajob 1 day ago|||
Didn’t seem snarky to me. Seemed pointed.
onion2k 1 day ago|||
I stopped thinking for myself, therefore I am not.
andy99 1 day ago||
In a world where everyone is using LLMs, the only way to differentiate oneself is to actually think. I don’t know if this is part of the idea behind having some in-house philosophers but it would be interesting. If I was a big lab I’d definitely want some “clean room” humans providing input that’s not just what a model regurgitated.
saltcured 1 day ago||
It's mechanical turks all the way down?
rvz 1 day ago||
Time for the regular posts on "how do I transition from senior software engineer to philosopher?"
lelandfe 1 day ago|||
Buy a lantern and start holding it up to your coworkers’ faces saying you’re looking for a good coder
munk-a 1 day ago||
It carries the danger of one of your coworkers responding "What makes a coder good?" and stealing the promotion, though.
Revanche1367 1 day ago||||
If you have to ask, then you aren’t any longer.
darth_avocado 1 day ago|||
Just look at their HN karma
d_burfoot 1 day ago|
It is going to be a big problem for humanity when the superintelligent AIs start telling us that our political philosophies, to which everyone is deeply and emotionally attached, are total garbage.

One obvious example is: we have a bizarre and anomalous belief that political union has a special moral status unlike other relationships (marital, financial, social, etc). In all other cases, relationships require consent from both parties, and it is monstrous to use force to compel a relationship. If we applied this logic to political relationships, we would immediately conclude that unilateral secession is a sacred right. But no one is ready to bite that bullet.

https://unifixion.substack.com/p/the-anomalous-ethics-of-pol...

saltcured 1 day ago||
Not sure I buy this. In my mind, dissolving this state relationship would be renouncing your citizenship as an individual.

Then, it seems naive and problematic to think you can take a personal chunk of territory with you after renouncement. At the very least, I think this is akin to trying to unilaterally drop an easement from a property deed. These territories were committed in perpetuity, not loaned with an expiration or compensation clause.

Acting collectively, it is still just many people deciding to renounce. Why would the territory go with them either? This tension is what makes it a revolutionary act.

anonymous908213 1 day ago|||
What are you even talking about? The right to self-determination is literally Article 1 of the UN charter. Nations are governed by power relationships, not philosophical ones, so they ignore the charter, but you aren't proposing anything novel or groundbreaking in any way. It is, in fact, the very first sacred right enshrined in international law, and has been for over 70 years.

In practice, Americans supported their own independence, and they support independence for eg. Taiwan, but they don't support independence for the Confederacy because that would entail weakening their own nation. To the extent that anyone will try to rationalise the American Civil War, they might reach for slavery, but a philosophical belief that political union is absolute and nobody can declare independence is not it; at most that's just a flimsy post-facto justification for the already-decided fact that states must not allowed to secede for power reasons, and this is evident from the fact they don't condemn their own revolution and advocate for return to British governance.

Very self-serving that you believe superintelligent AI is going to tell people your ideas are the best ones, incidentally.

sdellis 1 day ago|||
I think that the point of your post, which is that our morals and ethics are often illogical and don't stand up to scrutiny, is getting lost in the debate over your example.
yrnurn 18 hours ago||
[dead]