4
$\begingroup$

AI is a bloated term---we are facing this since day 1 of the definition stage. There are already quite a few questions going beyond the original (blurry) boundary of the proposal, notably on implementation issues.

But the worst problem seems to be the lack of objectivity in answers, and sometimes in questions too.

I will single out this question at time of reading, but there are already several like this one.

We must avoid too many threads that lack objectivity. I intend to vote down answers that are too subjective (but, well, I cannot down vote infinitely, as you know), and comment as necessary. Scalability issue, even in this private beta.

What would be the best way to proceed?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The question you link is a perfectly valid question in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosophy is the other large part of AI, together with technology, so they should be on-topic here.

However, one should be careful when answering these questions, that one does not base the answer on own opinions. One should reference what philosophers have said in the past, like one of the answers on the question you link mentions the Trolley problem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So you suggest that answers in the thread I link (for example) add references? I do agree that contributes well, by I have seen quite many SE sites where they don't even bother, yet they seem to do well (a pity, I think). If we concur as a community to require citations and references, I am all for it. $\endgroup$ – Eric Platon Aug 4 '16 at 1:49
2
$\begingroup$

During this private beta, you actually can downvote infinitely - the minimum rep for that privilege in this stage is 1. I think we're still subject to the "upvote one thing for every two things you downvote" rule, though, but that shouldn't be limiting, especially considering you have to have cast 300 votes before it takes effect.

It looks like you've already figured out what to do with nonconstructive answers and questions: downvote. For answers, you'll take a little hit of 1 point, but if it means saving the site from drivel, that's a fine price to pay. Questions that can only be answered subjectively can be closed as primarily opinion-based.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I did not know about the capability in private beta. Let's get to work... $\endgroup$ – Eric Platon Aug 4 '16 at 1:50
-2
$\begingroup$

If you don't like a question, down-vote it. That said, I disagree with the premise that there's a problem and "ZOMG, s0meth1ng mus7 b3 d0ne, won'7 s0mebody th1nk of th3 ch1ldr3n1?!??!???"

You can't dictate through top down command and control how a community should behave. Just because the powers-that-be at StackExchange say "no subjective questions" doesn't mean that we need to reflect that and get all up in arms over any question that allows from an element of subjectivity. The community will be what the community is, quit trying to social-engineer it.

There are already quite a few questions going beyond the original (blurry) boundary of the proposal, notably on implementation issues.

Then the original boundary was wrong.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .