or not. this is the choice, and no words attached to it: did you choose right? This is deliberately confusing, nobody could possibly do this by mistake.

"While I understand the professional risks, at this point in my career, I have lost interest in obeying the conventions of detachment and impersonality. I’ve lost interest in writing like a Russellian “free intellect.”"💕💕💕
Read the full paper here:
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

"At a certain point, your role is not simply to obey the conventions of your discipline: it is to help shape them." 💕

I understand the norms of this academic community. I am one of you. The more professionally established one gets, however, the less weight such conventionalist onsiderations should carry."

"The grad school applicant might have good pragmatic reasons to construct her writing sample in the style of a mainstream professional paper. Obeying disciplinary conventions can be a way of making one’s work legible as philosophy. It can be a way of saying:

"It’s unfortunate that the computer scientists figured out how to make something that kinda looks like intelligence before the psychologists could actually figure out what intelligence is, but here we are. There’s no putting the cat back in the bag now. It won’t fit—there’s too many words in there."

“Now it’s as smart as an undergraduate...now it’s as smart as a PhD!” These comparisons only give us the illusion of understanding AI’s capabilities and limitations, as well as our own, because we don’t actually know what it means to be smart in the first place."

For all of human history, something that talked like a human and walked like a human was, in fact, a human. (...)The original sin of artificial intelligence was, of course, calling it artificial intelligence. Those two words have lured us into making man the measure of machine:

"anyone who sees a mind inside the bag of words has fallen for a trick. They’ve had their evolution exploited. Their social faculties are firing not because there’s a human in front of them, but because natural selection gave those faculties a hair trigger.

This is a big problem for a bag of words that contains all of yesterday’s good ideas. Putting new ideas in the bag will often make the bag worse, on average, because most of those new ideas will be wrong. That’s why revolutionary research requires not only intelligence, but also stupidity. "

"Scientific breakthroughs often require doing things that are irrational and unreasonable for the standards of the time and good ideas usually look stupid when they first arrive, so they are often—with good reason!—rejected, dismissed, and ignored.

They are under a spell, they are blinded, their very nature is being misused and exploited. Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer essay “On Folly.”

for themselves. The fact that the fool is often stubborn must not mislead us into thinking that they are independent. One feels in fact, when talking to them, that one is dealing, not with the person themselves, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like, which have taken hold of them.

It is not that certain human capacities, intellectual capacities for instance, become stunted or destroyed, but rather that the upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that people are deprived of their independent judgment, and...give up trying to assess the new state of affairs