There's the objective definition of stupid, which can approximately be defined as: is your measured IQ too low to be acceptable to the US military?
Then there's the more subjective ones, such as:
1. Does it appear this person has fully thought through the short term and long term ramifications of their actions?
2. Would I have done that specific thing in that specific scenario?
3. Would a member of my peer group reasonably concluded the same thing?
The author seems fixated on subjective definition 1, claiming that people should be assumed to have made decisions rationally and thoughtfully and that people are too harsh on those who lack specific domain knowledge.
I'm not sure why he thinks that all the empirical evidence we have of what I will summarize as nutritional illiteracy in the US should ignored or that high school and college students (two groups with a well documented history of ignoring long term consequences of their actions) should be assumed to be rational, thoughtful agents, but my only guesses are that he has never interacted with any of these people or that he doesn't care because this is just a leaping off point for his defense of AI (my money is on the latter).
Subjective definition #2 seems to be what most people use, which I feel is unfair.
I added subjective definition #3 because it's one I've talked about with my friends a lot. Due to the removal of human interaction from most menial tasks (self checkouts at grocery stores, delivery of most goods via Amazon, etc.) and the fact that everyone I work with and nearly everyone I live near has at least one advanced degree and a high income, I literally can go weeks without interacting with a single person with an IQ of less than 115, which must skew my definition of stupid somehow, and I believe I am far from alone in this bifuraction of society.
IMO, contemplating that would be a much more interesting article than creating a very self-congratulatory method to chastise those who aren't all-in on AI as our future.
Then there's the more subjective ones, such as: 1. Does it appear this person has fully thought through the short term and long term ramifications of their actions? 2. Would I have done that specific thing in that specific scenario? 3. Would a member of my peer group reasonably concluded the same thing?
The author seems fixated on subjective definition 1, claiming that people should be assumed to have made decisions rationally and thoughtfully and that people are too harsh on those who lack specific domain knowledge.
I'm not sure why he thinks that all the empirical evidence we have of what I will summarize as nutritional illiteracy in the US should ignored or that high school and college students (two groups with a well documented history of ignoring long term consequences of their actions) should be assumed to be rational, thoughtful agents, but my only guesses are that he has never interacted with any of these people or that he doesn't care because this is just a leaping off point for his defense of AI (my money is on the latter).
Subjective definition #2 seems to be what most people use, which I feel is unfair.
I added subjective definition #3 because it's one I've talked about with my friends a lot. Due to the removal of human interaction from most menial tasks (self checkouts at grocery stores, delivery of most goods via Amazon, etc.) and the fact that everyone I work with and nearly everyone I live near has at least one advanced degree and a high income, I literally can go weeks without interacting with a single person with an IQ of less than 115, which must skew my definition of stupid somehow, and I believe I am far from alone in this bifuraction of society.
IMO, contemplating that would be a much more interesting article than creating a very self-congratulatory method to chastise those who aren't all-in on AI as our future.