# Career, Physics and Goals (was: Artificial General Intelligence Speculations)

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473
**Category:** Unbounded
**Created:** [January 5, 2022, 7:33am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473 "2022-01-05T07:33:01Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 222

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2022, 6:42am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473/222 "2022-02-22T06:42:50Z")

</div>

> [@lmf](#):
>
> I would definitely be curious to know what you think a persuasive argument would look like here. How can I objectively evaluate my own memories in situations like this?

You’re ambiguously and indirectly asking for free mentoring, but specifically about the conversation threads that you select which I think won’t be productive (because they’re local details not underlying causes). You’re not pursuing approaches that I think would be productive. You selecting topics, against my better judgment, is incompatible with mentoring.

This kind of thing also doesn’t work within a peer debate/discussion framework because, in that context, you have to suggest ways to proceed that are reasonable from both people’s perspectives. You have to think of something that would make progress both if person A was right and also if, instead, person B was right. You need a plan that takes into account both of those scenarios. But you have been unreceptive to my plans of that nature and have tried to steer conversations to stuff that I’ve explained are not productive from my point of view or if I’m right about what the situation is. (If you don’t already know this, and have experience doing it, and have a ton of other background knowledge, that’s incompatible with a peer context. If I have to guide you about it, then that looks more like teaching you stuff than interacting with a peer.)

For example, I wrote [this](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494/22) and your replies, besides their other problems, basically ignored the main thing I was saying which was about what I thought would and wouldn’t work to make progress.

> [@lmf](#):
>
> Okay, yes. But my earlier question still applies if I just change the word “philosophy” to the word “physics.” I.e.

You’re lost but I don’t think dealing with this local detail would solve any underlying problems.

> [@lmf](#):
>
> trust any of my memories by that standard

The issue is primarily interpretation, not memory, but this isn’t the right issue to deal with.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473)._