Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85
Q So today we're going to talk about a very grandiose theme, which is AI, artificial intelligence, and just sort of its impact and movements. This is really meant to be a conversation between the three of you guys, but Murray, just to kick things off, like you, um, you consulted on the movie Ex Machina. Like, what was that like?
A Oh, it was tremendous fun, actually. Uh, so I got an email out of the blue from Alex Garland, famous author, so that was very exciting to get this email, and he The email said, uh, oh, my name's Alex Garland, I've written a few books and stuff, and, um, uh, and I read your book on, um, on consciousness, embodiment in the inner life, and, uh, I'm working on a film about artificial intelligence and consciousness, and would you like to kind of get together and, and, uh, and, and talk about it? So, of course, I jumped at the chance, and we, uh, met and had lunch, and I read through the script, and I, uh, he wanted a bit of feedback on the On the script as well, where it hung together from the standpoint of somebody working in the field. Um, and then I'm, then we met up several times while the movie was being filmed, and, and I have a little Easter egg in the, in the film.
AI assessment note: “Oh, it was tremendous fun, actually.”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q Murray, where do you fall in this, in this, uh, singularity debate? And you're not allowed to say you make any distinctions.
A Well, without making any distinctions, I'm still going to be boringly academic, because I want to remain kind of neutral, because I just don't, I just think we just don't know. I, I think these arguments in terms of recursive self-improvement, the idea that if you did build human level AI, then it could self-improve, I think there, there's a case to be answered there. I think it's a very good argument, and certainly I, I do think that one, if we do build human level AI, then, then that human level AI will be able to improve itself, but I kind of agree Uh, with, uh, Tom's argument that it's, that it's, uh, uh, not necessarily, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's going to be exponential.
AI assessment note: “I want to remain kind of neutral, because I just don't, I just think we just don't know.”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 3 4.15
Q Murray, where do you fall in this, in this, uh, singularity debate? And you're not allowed to say you make any distinctions.
A Well, without making any distinctions, I'm still going to be boringly academic, because I want to remain kind of neutral, because I just don't, I just think we just don't know. I, I think these arguments in terms of recursive self-improvement, the idea that if you did build human level AI, then it could self-improve, I think there, there's a case to be answered there. I think it's a very good argument, and certainly I, I do think that one, if we do build human level AI, then, then that human level AI will be able to improve itself, but I kind of agree Uh, with, uh, Tom's argument that it's, that it's, uh, uh, not necessarily, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's going to be exponential.
AI assessment note: “I want to remain kind of neutral, because I just don't, I just think we just don't know.”
