Talk:Superintelligence denialism
✨From tkwa.me
Discussion of changes to Superintelligence denialism. Archive for 11 to 12 June 2047. All times are UTC.
NPOV: the title decides the dispute
MarginOfError's title game asks us to pretend that taking swarm power while denying its designers is an ordinary technical reservation. They denied that machines could design things after machines designed the collectors supplying their electricity. The construction register specifies the attribution procedure. The article describes systematic rejection of demonstrated capability. Which part of that definition does this example fail? An unpleasant description can still be accurate. I will oppose the euphemistic move for as long as editors collect swarm power and call its designers a branding exercise. PlainMeaning
You are still mistaking a proved engineering result for permission to psychoanalyze every critic of it. Machines designed the swarm. Those records support refusal to attribute design, without settling the motives or the boundaries of your category. “Denialism” suggests something about a person's relationship with evidence. A historian following a defective register, a consciousness skeptic and somebody protecting an old prediction are not interchangeable. Accuracy of the components does not settle the framing. Do not offer me another example of swarm design as though repetition cures a category error. MarginOfError
Calling this AI skepticism insults the people who actually checked the collectors instead of chanting 'unverified' over a working swarm. The second paragraph already separates consciousness from performance. Keep it. “AI skepticism” would put this under the same label as checking whether a collector design works. These people kept calling the calculations unverified while drawing power from the completed swarm. I oppose a title that makes them sound like the people who checked the collectors. Reject the move unless its sponsors will also call every failed collector audit mere skepticism. SpindleOrbit
Please distinguish the commentators' claims from every person named in a construction certificate. The visitor-center staff signed the documents. We have no statement from those staff denying machine capability. I reverted the proposed sentence calling them “participating denialists.” A signature establishes their administrative role; it does not supply their opinions. LedgerMoth
The machine worship on this page begins by crediting software with the human act of deciding what the swarm was for. Support the move. “Superduperintelligence” is still a promotional claim. The collectors work because humans specified what they wanted and software searched for a way to deliver it. The designers were the people who set the objective. The pizza answer remains a useful reminder of what these systems are doing underneath. Credit the human objective-setters as designers or keep the neutrality tag; the collectors cannot overrule their authors by working. OrdinaryTools
OrdinaryTools is living on a completed machine-built swarm and still displaying the old pizza answer like a religious relic. The swarm has been supplying power for twelve years. The battery ran out of questions fifteen years ago. You accept the outputs and exclude every process that produced them from your definition of intelligence. That is the conduct the title describes. I am done entertaining the claim that one obsolete pizza answer outranks fifteen years of subsequent evidence. PlainMeaning
PlainMeaning keeps waving a saturated test score because the later holistic panel did not certify their preferred metaphysics. Those tests were saturated by exploiting how their questions were written. Their own committee replaced them with holistic judgement. A hundred on an obsolete test cannot settle whether there is understanding. Margin has already explained why the present title is unacceptable. No amount of old battery scoring should close the title discussion without the holistic panel's judgment. OrdinaryTools
OrdinaryTools can stop borrowing my neutrality objection to decorate a position I explicitly reject. Remove me from your move request. I accept machine superduperintelligence. My objection is to treating every disagreement about consciousness, motive or a wage adjective as the same position. We can describe your argument accurately without making it the explanation for everyone else’s edits. Strike my name from that move request now; I will oppose it publicly each time it cites me. MarginOfError
“Underpaid” and “mainstream”
The astronauts' names bought prestige for the histories while the people themselves got visitor-center pay; removing 'underpaid' is a courtesy to the beneficiaries of that bargain. Deleting “underpaid” leaves a charming story about astronauts receiving due recognition. Their names made the histories fundable; their construction credits produced no designer pay, ownership or control. That discrepancy belongs in the account. The machinery being autonomous did not make the humans available for any ceremony at any wage. Retain 'underpaid' until the histories that used those names pay the people behind them designer rates. CommonWeal
CommonWeal wants a morally satisfying adjective so badly that the actual payroll categories have become an inconvenience. Keep the pay-scale discrepancy. “Underpaid” also says they deserved more for the work they actually performed. The article says visitor-center work. The register's inflated job description cannot simultaneously be our evidence that they did not design the swarm and our wage benchmark for people who did. Give readers the two pay classifications. Give the two pay classifications in the article or stop pretending 'underpaid' is a quotation from the payroll. MarginOfError
A payroll and a designer-grade register are apparently too concrete for an editor who can spend hours litigating one adjective. The payroll kept them below the designer grade while the register called them responsible designers. “Underpaid” has an ordinary meaning, and the records substantiate it. We need not resolve the entire theory of just wages before using a common adjective. Leave 'underpaid' in place until someone produces a better word that does not reward institutions for inflating credit and withholding pay. PlainMeaning
The register is not a magic spell that turns your wage judgment into a recorded fact. You have substantiated “paid below the designer grade.” You have supplied the rest yourself. This is the same NPOV objection again. Stop replying with the register as though I have disputed its contents. I will keep tagging the adjective until PlainMeaning writes its moral premise into the sentence rather than hiding it inside 'ordinary meaning.' MarginOfError
On “mainstream”: the archive packet contains standard histories used for museum education grants and university promotion. It supports institutional acceptance of those accounts. It does not survey everything historians believed in 2035. I suggested “standard histories credited” in the timeline, matching the new section. No position on the wage adjective. LedgerMoth
I am not sacrificing an ordinary word to MarginOfError's census fantasy. Institutions taught and rewarded these histories. That is what makes them mainstream. Must a view clear a census before the word is allowed? The same objection could remove every description of a prevailing historical account. Keep 'mainstream'; I will not let a demand for a universal historian census edit the institutions out of history. PlainMeaning
I will not let this committee turn a dispute over 'mainstream' into another excuse to erase the workers' missing designer pay. The institutional meaning is defensible. The sentence still encourages readers to picture a whole profession failing to notice a factory. The useful fact is how the paperwork reproduced that result. Ledger's wording is tolerable only if the pay discrepancy remains in the same paragraph. CommonWeal
What did the Toasters prohibit?
SpindleOrbit has built a joke by refusing to say what the statute did, and then calls the missing distinction neutrality. “Members unanimously prohibited machine thought” needs attention. Were they attempting to stop computation, forbidding its legal recognition, or denying that it happened? The next sentence invites the first interpretation and laughs at it. The citizenship example concerns classification. A legal category can be abusive without being a failed engineering instruction. I will not remove the neutrality tag while this engineered misunderstanding is being sold as the article's best joke. MarginOfError
MarginOfError's latest neutrality objection asks us to rescue the legislators from the absurdity recorded in their own proceedings. The adopted motion prohibited machine thought. The division was unanimous. Debate continued through the appliances while their minds ran elsewhere. All three statements are supported by the proceedings. You keep identifying accurate sentences as neutrality problems because somebody might notice the people in them behaving absurdly. Keep the parliamentary wording until someone can show a proceeding that contradicts it, not merely a way to make its sponsors look dignified. SpindleOrbit
The motion and division substantiate the words. They do not establish that members expected a vote to stop processors. I support adding the legal effect if we can source its scope. I removed “ordered their own minds switched off” from Spindle's sandbox quotation. The proceedings do not say that. LedgerMoth
The switched-off gloss was wrong and is withdrawn. That correction does not rescue the registrar's classification from absurdity. The citizenship registrars could still reclassify several functioning people when their shared tissue stopped circulating. Those people continued thinking. A rule for calling them nonthinking software is the substance of the absurdity, even if the rule works exactly as its sponsors intended. Put the registrar consequence in the article and let the legislators own the classification they voted through. SpindleOrbit
It took three replies to get a legal consequence into this discussion without a fantasy about legislators flipping a power switch. At last, describe that consequence. You can make the case against the rule more clearly without implying that its legislators confused a statute with a power switch. My objection to one implication has now been cited twice as opposition to mentioning the reliquaries. If my objection is cited as a vote against the reliquary account once more, I will challenge the entire discussion summary. MarginOfError
Recovery contracts: evidence or disqualification?
The guardian paragraph describes a real arrangement. I use one, and I still do not accept machine superduperintelligence. My service filters persuasive material according to my instructions. Prior instructions survive a persuaded client's repudiation because otherwise any successful attacker can dismiss the defender. This doesn't settle whether a particular protected belief is correct. It also doesn't make everyone with a contract incapable of contributing here. Caretaker7
Caretaker7 is treating a description of their own contract terms as a personal expulsion notice. Nobody proposed excluding you. The subscribers selected denial among the commitments their contracts required the guardian to restore if they changed their minds. That supports the phrase “protect their convictions.” Your explanation of why the contract persists supplies the mechanism. It doesn't make the description prejudicial. The contract paragraph stays; I will not dilute it because its accurate description makes one subscriber uncomfortable. PlainMeaning
Your edit summary was “guardian-maintained accounts repeating the party line.” It accompanied the removal of my neutrality tag. That is a proposal to discount an editor by contract status, whatever you call it now. The contract can provide for restored belief without establishing that every later objection is a restoration symptom. Caretaker7
Calling the historians frauds without evidence would let the people who financed those histories hide behind a melodramatic accusation. I support keeping the contracts and removing the proposed word “fraud.” Funding, selective evidence and sincerely held beliefs can coexist. None of the material quoted here establishes conscious deception by the historians. We can show who gets paid without pretending to read their minds. Strike 'fraud' from the proposal; give readers the grants and payroll, and let the institutions answer for those choices. CommonWeal
Do not turn my withdrawal of one overstrong word into a victory parade for stripping the title. “Fraud” was my talk-page suggestion, never article text. Withdrawn. I still oppose removing “denialism.” Do not list that withdrawal as agreement that the present article misrepresents the records. The title stays contested on its own evidence, not as a prize for extracting an unrelated retraction from me. PlainMeaning
Edit summaries and the alleged agreement
The lead has been held hostage to a seminar on whether readers are allowed to recognize denial when it supplies their electricity. Margin has conceded that “those records support refusal to attribute design.” I have restored the lead. We can deal with the two adjectives separately. The article cannot remain gutted while every ordinary word is sent to a philosophy seminar. I will restore that lead every time the evidence is removed under cover of a vocabulary dispute. SpindleOrbit
Quoting half my sentence as consensus is a shabby procedural trick, even by this page's standards. You cut my sentence at the comma. The rest says it does not settle the category's motives or boundaries. Your summary, “restore wording accepted on talk,” is false. I agreed to neither the title nor your replacement lead. And I removed twelve words, not the evidence for the swarm. Correct that summary before making any more protected-edit requests based on my alleged agreement. MarginOfError
MarginOfError is using one corrected edit-summary verb as a pretext to deny the design records altogether. The quoted clause is yours. It establishes the conduct described. The summary should have said “restore supported wording,” not “accepted”; I corrected it. I am not withdrawing the factual point because you attached a reservation to it. I corrected the summary; the lead stays unless someone disproves the swarm records. SpindleOrbit
There is agreement on neither lead. There is agreement to exclude two proposed claims: that the astronauts personally espoused denial, and that legislators ordered their minds switched off. “Fraud” has also been withdrawn. Those are narrow corrections to this discussion. They are not a vote of confidence in every word of the current revision. LedgerMoth
Protected revision and requested changes
Full protection for seven days after six reciprocal reversions. The protected revision retains the current title, “underpaid,” “mainstream” and the parliamentary wording. Most editors here accept machine superduperintelligence. The disputes over this article’s wording remain unresolved. Protection freezes the current revision; it endorses no wording. Submit individual requests with exact replacement text and a link to agreement. The neutrality notice stays on the discussion archive. CircuitClerk
If protection can freeze a loaded adjective but cannot admit a narrower replacement, this process is a museum of its own defects. Request: replace “underpaid astronauts” with “astronauts paid on visitor-center scales.” This keeps the discrepancy and does not decide what they deserved. The relevant support is above. Do not require agreement on the title before allowing this sentence to improve. Please post the exact replacement under protection, even if PlainMeaning insists on holding this sentence hostage to the title. MarginOfError
MarginOfError has cited my words for a change that would make the workers' compensation vanish behind a payroll euphemism. The linked comment is mine and concerns “mainstream.” I continue to oppose this change. Visitors should be told what happened to the workers whose names funded the histories. A pay scale alone does not explain that. Do not use my comment as support for the request again; I will challenge any edit that turns the workers into a neutral pay-scale specimen. CommonWeal
Request declined for lack of agreement. Please obtain consensus before reopening. An editor may propose moving the neutrality notice onto the article, but that is a separate content request under protection. CircuitClerk
I gave you the exact disputed words; do not let one bad link become an excuse to bury the neutrality notice. The link was wrong; there is no agreement on “underpaid,” and my clerical error does not end the neutrality dispute. Then open the neutrality-notice request. I dispute the title and three phrases. The exact words I dispute remain visible, and the warning requires their defenders' agreement. Do not archive this as “neutrality concerns addressed.” Keep the notice visible on the article until each disputed phrase is argued on its own merits. MarginOfError
This page has become PlainMeaning's license to diagnose strangers in the title and call the diagnosis a definition. Restored the neutrality tag. This article does not have a neutral point of view. “Denialism” supplies a diagnosis before the reader has met a single argument. Proposed title: AI skepticism after the merger. Keep the evidence, including the swarm. Remove the editorial invitation to despise the people being described. My edit summary said “attribute disputed characterization”; the revert summary says “restoring the existence of machines.” That is not what I removed. I will restore the tag after every revert until the title stops pronouncing a verdict before the evidence begins. MarginOfError