Nope, he said something to the effect of "I'm guessing they won't come up with genuinely original ideas or music" just as a guess off the top of his head. It was an aside, not a part of his overall thesis.
@@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 His whole argument is that robots can't ever be as capable as humans at certain tasks. So he was asked directly -- what are these tasks? First he says that all the things robots are not good at now, they will forever "likely" be not good at (so, no more progress ever). Then he gives specifics: "coming up with an intellectually original argument -- I don't think they're going to be good at that", and "coming up with original music -- I don't think they're going to be good at that".
Bryan dismantled Robin's arguments. The fact that they are friends and colleagues, and how well aware Bryan is of Robin's views, is indicative of how decisive Robin's failure is here. It seems to be an example of how a smart guy like Robin can affirm erroneous things in face of overwhelming arguments and still not relent.
Bryan’s argument about domestication makes no sense. We know why domestication hasn’t produced dogs that play chess - because when you selectively breed you eventually use up the variation in the population, after which you have to rely on mutation (a slow process) to introduce new variation. There’s also the fact of long generation times. AI doesn’t have similar problems.
This argument that productive robots would have the 'aggression' of productive people is blatantly flawed. That 'trade of'f is a characteristic of humans, not a universal characteristic of productive systems!
Let's ban farm machinery to create jobs! We can farm with shovels and employ many more people. Better yet, let's farm with spoons. We can have full employment, but no one could afford to eat.
To me it seems like a very tight argument within the bounds he is commenting, presented in very simple and clear language. It took me some time but eventually I started to get the axioms both of them were building their arguments on, and both of them essentially makes almost perfect logical sense. What makes it hard to follow at times are that where they disagree are premises/axioms and definitions. Bryan unusually seems completely aware of this though. Which is uncommon to see, even though it is the case in many (most?) debates.
The primary axiom difference is I think btw that Robin Hanson says Ems will likely be basically digitized human beings, while Bryan assumes them being more or less software with human-like features. The primary definition difference is Robin Hansons use of the word dominate. Which I agree with Bryan he uses in more instances than other people do. But then again I also started to understand why he does this, and that is because he essentially believes that many more things in our society is about domination than we like to believe (see The Elephant in the Brain).
Bryan just keeps hand-waving the "construct" away, simply asserting "I don't think that's possible" without presenting any compelling reasons for the assertion. What would prevent a select-powerful few humans from evolving robots to serve them at the detriment of the rest of mankind is not something to be waved away with facile shoulder-shrugging.
18:00 Bryan claims that robots will *never* create original music. Well here we are 6 years later -- he was wrong.
Nope, he said something to the effect of "I'm guessing they won't come up with genuinely original ideas or music" just as a guess off the top of his head. It was an aside, not a part of his overall thesis.
@@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069 His whole argument is that robots can't ever be as capable as humans at certain tasks. So he was asked directly -- what are these tasks? First he says that all the things robots are not good at now, they will forever "likely" be not good at (so, no more progress ever). Then he gives specifics: "coming up with an intellectually original argument -- I don't think they're going to be good at that", and "coming up with original music -- I don't think they're going to be good at that".
Caplan is my favorite super-duper-uber-nerd in the whole wide world.
"He's the CEO, bitch". Nice, Caplan is such a boss.
Bryan dismantled Robin's arguments. The fact that they are friends and colleagues, and how well aware Bryan is of Robin's views, is indicative of how decisive Robin's failure is here.
It seems to be an example of how a smart guy like Robin can affirm erroneous things in face of overwhelming arguments and still not relent.
Caplan destroyed Robin's argument pretty quick.
sorta interesting to listen to, but it feels like both of them were talking about wildly different things
Bryan’s argument about domestication makes no sense. We know why domestication hasn’t produced dogs that play chess - because when you selectively breed you eventually use up the variation in the population, after which you have to rely on mutation (a slow process) to introduce new variation. There’s also the fact of long generation times. AI doesn’t have similar problems.
This argument that productive robots would have the 'aggression' of productive people is blatantly flawed. That 'trade of'f is a characteristic of humans, not a universal characteristic of productive systems!
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
From the start..they couldn’t even keep with their own guidelines for the debate. LOL
Did this... did this guy just said machines earned income?
Let's ban farm machinery to create jobs! We can farm with shovels and employ many more people. Better yet, let's farm with spoons. We can have full employment, but no one could afford to eat.
Conclusion: robots will dominate half the world.
16 min in and caplan's argument is just terrible.
Yeah it is. Take his style and smartass bravado away, then we are left with meaningless, and ridiculous content to an argument.
Could you be specific?
To me it seems like a very tight argument within the bounds he is commenting, presented in very simple and clear language. It took me some time but eventually I started to get the axioms both of them were building their arguments on, and both of them essentially makes almost perfect logical sense. What makes it hard to follow at times are that where they disagree are premises/axioms and definitions.
Bryan unusually seems completely aware of this though. Which is uncommon to see, even though it is the case in many (most?) debates.
The primary axiom difference is I think btw that Robin Hanson says Ems will likely be basically digitized human beings, while Bryan assumes them being more or less software with human-like features.
The primary definition difference is Robin Hansons use of the word dominate. Which I agree with Bryan he uses in more instances than other people do. But then again I also started to understand why he does this, and that is because he essentially believes that many more things in our society is about domination than we like to believe (see The Elephant in the Brain).
Workers would no longer be exploited! Yay. We can get our communes or socialist co-ops going.
Bryan just keeps hand-waving the "construct" away, simply asserting "I don't think that's possible" without presenting any compelling reasons for the assertion. What would prevent a select-powerful few humans from evolving robots to serve them at the detriment of the rest of mankind is not something to be waved away with facile shoulder-shrugging.