Michael Levin: recommendation

Transcript context

…To have a bit of a meta conversation about the conversation, I should say that part of the persuadability argument that we two intelligent creatures are doing is me playing devil’s advocate every once in a while. And you did the same, which is kind of interesting, taking the opposite view and see what comes out. Because you don’t know the result of the argument until you have the argument, and it seems productive to just take the other side of the argument. For sure. It’s a very important thinking aid to, first of all, you know, what they call steel manning, right? To try to make the strongest possible case for the other side and to ask yourself, “Okay, what are all the places that I am sort of glossing over because I don’t know exactly what to say? And where are all the holes in the argument, and what would a, you know, a really good critique really look like?” Yeah. Sorry to go back there just to linger on the term, because it’s so interesting, persuadability. Did I understand correctly that you mean that it’s kind of synonymous with intelligence? So it’s an engineering-centric view of an intelligence system. Because if it’s persuadable, you’re more focused on, how can I steer the goals of the system, the behaviors of the system? Meaning an intelligence system maybe is a goal-oriented, goal-driven system with agency. And when you call it persuadable, you’re thinking more like, “Okay, here’s an intelligence system that I’m interacting with that I would like to get to accomplish certain things.” But fundamentally, are they synonymous or correlated, persuadability and intelligence?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.