Yesterday 09:04 PM
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 09:05 PM by C C.)
SABINE HOSSENFELDER
https://youtu.be/RmvQtxc9R3Q
VIDEO EXCERPTS: A physicist has written a book explaining how artificial intelligence will make much of philosophy obsolete soon. A philosopher thinks otherwise, and I think, well, they're both wrong. Let me explain. The new book comes from Louis Vervoort, who started out with a PhD in physics, but then did a second PhD in philosophy. So, this isn't your stereotypical ignorant physicist with a YouTube channel. You have me for that.
The book is titled Problem Solving in Philosophy, How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI. To make a long story short, the author argues that philosophy should be done like in natural science in general, and like theoretical physics in particular...
[...] He argues that philosophers should quantify how good an explanation is by using that explanation, which gives the largest number of coherent answers to the well-posed problems. He calls this the Maximally Coherent Theory. The best theory is the one that explains the most cases, makes sense of the most counterexamples, and contradicts the least other accepted knowledge. And AI can do it, so his argument, because all it really comes down to is counting the questions answered and contradictions.
[...] I don't have much sympathy for the physicist argument in this case either because the question of how to quantify the best explanation for a philosophical theory is itself a philosophical problem. And the entire idea that you can sciencify philosophy is nonsense because philosophy is exactly what we use to discuss the questions that science cannot answer or not yet. There are, of course, questions that eventually move from philosophy to science...
[...] The problem with the author's argument is nicely illustrated in his take on the problem of induction. That's the question of why induction works. [...] You might say, "Well, it's because we have seen in the past that that's the case." Yes, but that'll be proving induction by induction, which is a circular argument.
Vervoort basically says it's a meaningless question because induction should be treated as an axiom, and as such, it doesn't require a justification. But induction is an axiom in science. We need it for science to work. The question is why does it work? That's the question science can't answer, which is exactly why it's a question for philosophers. If you say a non-scientific question isn't a question, then yeah, I guess you can close the philosophy departments, but even Claude could tell you that this is a pseudo argument.
[...] I give the book a six out of 10 on the BS meter. Why is it so low after all I've said? It's because I think that the method that the author suggests to quantify how good different explanations are is worthwhile. I just don't think it's going to make philosophy redundant, and if AI really does make philosophy obsolete, philosophers will spend the next 50 years debating whether that actually happened...
AI will end philosophy, physicist claims ... https://youtu.be/RmvQtxc9R3Q
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RmvQtxc9R3Q
https://youtu.be/RmvQtxc9R3Q
VIDEO EXCERPTS: A physicist has written a book explaining how artificial intelligence will make much of philosophy obsolete soon. A philosopher thinks otherwise, and I think, well, they're both wrong. Let me explain. The new book comes from Louis Vervoort, who started out with a PhD in physics, but then did a second PhD in philosophy. So, this isn't your stereotypical ignorant physicist with a YouTube channel. You have me for that.
The book is titled Problem Solving in Philosophy, How to Do Philosophy in the Age of Ultra-Intelligent AI. To make a long story short, the author argues that philosophy should be done like in natural science in general, and like theoretical physics in particular...
[...] He argues that philosophers should quantify how good an explanation is by using that explanation, which gives the largest number of coherent answers to the well-posed problems. He calls this the Maximally Coherent Theory. The best theory is the one that explains the most cases, makes sense of the most counterexamples, and contradicts the least other accepted knowledge. And AI can do it, so his argument, because all it really comes down to is counting the questions answered and contradictions.
[...] I don't have much sympathy for the physicist argument in this case either because the question of how to quantify the best explanation for a philosophical theory is itself a philosophical problem. And the entire idea that you can sciencify philosophy is nonsense because philosophy is exactly what we use to discuss the questions that science cannot answer or not yet. There are, of course, questions that eventually move from philosophy to science...
[...] The problem with the author's argument is nicely illustrated in his take on the problem of induction. That's the question of why induction works. [...] You might say, "Well, it's because we have seen in the past that that's the case." Yes, but that'll be proving induction by induction, which is a circular argument.
Vervoort basically says it's a meaningless question because induction should be treated as an axiom, and as such, it doesn't require a justification. But induction is an axiom in science. We need it for science to work. The question is why does it work? That's the question science can't answer, which is exactly why it's a question for philosophers. If you say a non-scientific question isn't a question, then yeah, I guess you can close the philosophy departments, but even Claude could tell you that this is a pseudo argument.
[...] I give the book a six out of 10 on the BS meter. Why is it so low after all I've said? It's because I think that the method that the author suggests to quantify how good different explanations are is worthwhile. I just don't think it's going to make philosophy redundant, and if AI really does make philosophy obsolete, philosophers will spend the next 50 years debating whether that actually happened...
AI will end philosophy, physicist claims ... https://youtu.be/RmvQtxc9R3Q
