The Theory of Anything

In this episode, we continue our discussion of Dwarkesh Patel's article "Contra David Deutsch on AI" compared to Brett Hall's tweet on IQ theory. This time we concentrate on criticisms of Patel's Hardware+Scaling hypothesis. To Patel's credit, he admits that his hypothesis is problematic.  Then Peter asks Bruce about why Brett Hall believes explanatory universality implies 'equal intellectual capacity'. Bruce gives a steelmanned version of Brett's theory that takes us through an explanation of what explanatory universality is and how it relates to computational universality and the Turing Principle. 

Dwarkesh Patel published an article called "Contra David Deutsch on AI". This article was actually a defense of IQ theory against the charge (often made by fans of David Deutsch) that the existence of Explanatory Universality destroys IQ theory entirely. But how accurately does Dwarkesh portray Deutsch's view? (For that matter, how accurately do fans of David Deutsch portray Deutsch's viewpoint?) And how good are Patel's criticisms of Deutsch's view?  With some help from a tweet from Brett Hall on IQ theory, we compare and contrast Patel's and Hall's viewpoints and lay out the disagreements that exist.  Brett argues that Explanatory Universality implies we are all equally intelligent (i.e. have an equal capacity to learn) and that the only difference between people is our levels of interest in the knowledge that currently society happens to value. Is he correct? Or are the experiments cited by Patel wrong? If so, how? Or to put this another way, if we did demonstrate via an experiment that some people do gain knowledge faster than others (as Patel claims), would that refute the theory of explanatory universality? Or are Brett's claims not actually implications of explanatory universality?

In our previous episode, we asked if Karl Popper was Dogmatic. We also introduced the idea that Karl Popper wasn't convinced that dogmatism was always bad. In this episode, we further explore Karl Popper's idea that dogmatism is sometimes a good thing. We also ask difficult questions like 'How can you tell when you are being dogmatic?' and 'Is it possible to overcome your own dogmatism?'

There seems to be broad agreement, even among Karl Popper's own students, that he was a deeply dogmatic individual. In this episode we ask the question 'Was Karl Popper Dogmatic?' by reviewing a humorous article in Scientific American by John Horgan on August 22, 2018. Along the way, we discuss by what means we judge dogmatism. How do we even tell if someone is dogmatic or not? Is there a litmus test for dogmatism? If so, what is it?  Link to John Horgan's article.

Blake Lemoine, the ex-Google engineer, claims LaMDA -- Google's language model -- is sentient. Is he right? Alan Turing is perhaps most famous for his "Turing Test" which is a test of intelligence. David Deutsch has some interesting things to say about the Turing Test in "The Beginning of Infinity." Unfortunately, Deutsch's critique of the Turing Test is often misunderstood and it has led to some of his fans disparaging the Turing Test in ways that don't make sense.  The key question is why can humans so easily -- with a high degree of accuracy -- tell if they are talking to an intelligent being or not by merely having a conversation with the person? What is special about conversation that allows it to be used as a highly accurate test of general intelligence?  We also present a Turing Test 2.0 that improves upon the original Turing Test by removing the element of deception and formalizes the test better.  Along the way we answer the following questions: Is Blake Lemoine right that LaMDA is sentient? How can we know? Under what circumstances can a chatbot pass the original Turing Test 1.0? Will we ever have a chatbot that can pass the Turing Test 2.0? What can we learn from the Turing Test about intelligence?

Is Elon Musk right that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) research is like 'summoning the demon' and should be regulated? In episodes 48 and 49, we discussed how our genes 'align' our interests with their own utilizing carrots and sticks (pleasure/pain) or attention and perception. If our genes can create a General Intelligence (i.e. Universal Explainer) alignment and safety 'program' for us, what's to stop us from doing that to future Artificial General Intelligences (AGIs) that we create?  But even if we can, should we? "I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I were to guess like what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with the artificial intelligence. Increasingly scientists think there should be some regulatory oversight maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon." --Elon Musk

How do we square genetically influenced mental disorders with the theory of explanatory universality? In a previous episode, Tracy asked Bruce how to reconcile her experience with mental disorders, like narcissism, with the idea of Universal Explainers. This is part 2 of that discussion. In the last episode, Bruce introduced the idea that emotions and feelings aren't the same as ideas and go back to an earlier point in our evolutionary history. The genes then use our feelings to try to coerce us or encourage us via pleasures and pain.  Bruce completes his list of possible ways genes can affect our personality and ideas without violating universality: The genes can control physiology and this in turn can impact our personality and ideas via interaction with existing (sometimes stable) culture The genes can control how we grow the various parts of the cortex and since those parts affect our ability to think, they affect our personality development as well as interests. The genes can control perceptions and this can in turn impact our ideas. The genes control how we’re wired to pleasure and pain centers of the brain and can coerce or encourage us via these feelings. The genes control how we gain ideas via attention. The genes can affect culture via 1-5 above and then let culture do the heavy lifting Humans may be significantly affected by older animal modules of the brain in some cases. We have no reason to believe all knowledge we learn is via ‘the universal explainer’ module. In addition, we discuss how the existence of insanity, dreams, and people who are extremely mentally challenged prove that there is such a thing as a person that is not a universal explainer but can still reason to a degree. See Steven Peck's "My Madness" for an amazing example. Then we introduce the strongest problem we currently know of: the extreme heritability of psychopathy in some children.

How do we square genetically influenced mental disorders with the theory of explanatory universality? In our last episode, Tracy asked Bruce how to reconcile her experience with mental disorders, like narcissism, with the idea of Universal Explainers. In this episode, Bruce does his best to tease out an answer. (While admitting that we can't answer her entirely--yet.)  In "The Beginning of Infinity", David Deutsch offers some solid criticisms of current experiments to determine how much of a personality trait is 'heritable.' This has led some of his fans to take his ideas to some extreme conclusions not implied by the book. For example, some people now claim that genes play no role at all in influencing Universal Explainers. In fact, Deutsch did not say this.  According to Deutsch (in BoI), genes can influence our ideas and personality traits via something as simple as how physiology (physical traits) interact with culture (standards of beauty) and that can in turn impacts one's personality (perhaps increasing happiness.) So we now have at least one example of how genes can have an impact on our personality and ideas. (Via physiology interacting with culture.)  With this in mind, Bruce asks the obvious question: What are other ways genes can affect personality traits and ideas that do not violate explanatory universality?  Bruce's list (partially revealed in this episode) is a testable set of ways genes may impact our personality and ideas. This suggests how we might go about responding to critics of the theory of Explanatory Universality without violating Popper's epistemology via either ad hoc saves or ignoring basic statements (i.e. repeatable observations) from existing experiments. O Falibilista's review of "The Ape That Understood the Universe – how the mind and culture evolve" is an excellent example of how bad evolutionary psychology can be at times. 

Tracy leads a discussion about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). We discuss various other mental disorders as well. We sadly admit that some disorders are currently so serious that there is little hope of helping those that have them. (And they may not even be aware that they have a disorder!) But will this always be true? If all problems are soluble and human beings are universal explainers, then the answer should be a resounding "no!" But Tracy asks 'if we're all universal explainers, then why can't we help people today?' as well as 'does this have any relevance to AGI safety programs?'

What responsibility do the creators of a TV series or movie have to be faithful to the original source material? What risks are involved with either adapting the material too closely or not close enough? The much-anticipated Wheel of Time tv show is finally here and we discuss our feelings about the show compared to the books. Warning: this podcast contains extensive spoilers for both the books and the series.