Ramón Alvarado

@ramonalvarado.bsky.social

Associate Professor of Philosophy. Editor-in-Chief of Global Philosophy. President of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP) and the Association for Philosophy and Computing (APC). Philosopher of computational methods.

PSA 🚨This is actually a sound argumentative strategy and common sense: you don’t need to know what the truth is to know something is false, you don’t need to know what would solve a problem to know what won’t, etc. this applies to mathematics, science, problem solving, etc.

Bild

Simpatizo: la cuestión es ética y no tecnológica. Y hay una ecuación de poder en juego. Como lo propongo en mi trabajo: si —como diría Bacon — “el saber es poder” y si la #IA es una tecnología epistemica, entonces estamos cediendo poder. Pero la ecuación es compleja y no lineal. 🧵 1/2 #philtech

Bild

I use to buy this and counter that artifacts shouldn’t be as opaque as we are. Later I realized its false premise: we actually don’t trust opaque humans. We provide education in best practices, licenses, and transparent methodology that we can rely on or inspect for scientist, doctors, judges, etc.

Kevin Zollman@kevinzollman.com · 5mo ago

I have never been convinced by Paul's argument. Humans are also epistemically opaque, but we seem happy to use them to do science

Some of us in philosophy of science have been concerned abt this wrt computational methods for almost three decades (before AI) without anyone really listening. The Epistemic opacity in scientific computer simulations literature started bc of this concern. Glad people are catching up. #philsci

Kevin Zollman@kevinzollman.com · 5mo ago

This worries me most about AI in science. It's what happened with the advent of Stata and SPSS. They enabled incredibly rapid advances in the sciences and also set the stage for the replication crisis. Sadly, so many scientists simply don't understand the stats they are using.

Sometimes I know what I’m looking for but don’t know where I’ll find it. Sometimes I don’t know but then I find it. Sometimes I am not looking for anything and something finds me. As the history of science has shown, serendipity is often enriching for research and the researcher. #philsci #philtech

Automating SOME specific aspects of research/science may be fine. Doing so uncritically or for bad reasons is not. Thinking that something being “better” (faster/cheaper/more accurate, etc.) is by itself reason enough for it to replace something that is not, is a fallacy. #philtech #philsci

I philosophize about #AI. Nothing that I have written or will ever write will ever use it. Not bc I distrust it or bc I think it couldn’t do it. Just bc, to me, figuring out ways to do some of the things it could do is part of the beauty, privilege, fun and the point of what I do. #philtech

Why do people think the Turing test is abt machine intelligence? It’s clearly about OUR ability to discern/tell the difference given ONLY output/behavior concerning discreet tasks. Two completely different things. If you think otherwise, you didn’t read that paper correctly. #AIethics #philtech

The lawful/unlawful angle wrt Anthropic + DOW debate seems like a red herring: mass surveillance of American citizens could become legal, that doesn’t make it any better/desirable/moral. Autonomous weapons could be legal, that doesn’t mean AI is ready/reliable/safe for them. #AIethics #philtech

Although this was strongly written from the #philsci perspective, I hope it’ll be useful for #philtech, #sts, or #philsky in general. The ubiquity of simulations in natural/social science, medicine, policy/politics, should make them of at least some interest to anyone doing 21st century philosophy.

Ramón Alvarado@ramonalvarado.bsky.social · 7mo ago

🚨 Our Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Computer Simulations in Science is now live. It was a lot of work but I’m proud of this substantial update. I hope it helps those in #philsci interested in the philosophical implications of computational methods. plato.stanford.edu/entries/simu...

I understand the concerns about peer review, but I have to say that what I’ve seen as an editor in the last year is both heartwarming and fills me with hope. The level of thoughtfulness, care, and practicality is amazing. A community of scholars striving for both rigor and inclusivity.