# Epistemic Humility **Domain:** Epistemology / Governance **Doc Type:** Concept Node **Maturity:** Evolving **Related:** [[Disclosure Asymmetry]], [[Prediction Is Not Jurisdiction]], [[Construction Transparency]], [[Recursive Self-Correction]] --- ## Definition **Epistemic humility** is disciplined recognition of the limits, uncertainty and revisability of one's knowledge. ## Corpus Context In this corpus it is operational rather than ornamental: models must expose uncertainty, institutions must preserve appeals, and speculative interpretations must remain distinguishable from verified mechanisms. ## See Also [[Disclosure Asymmetry]], [[Prediction Is Not Jurisdiction]], [[Construction Transparency]], [[Recursive Self-Correction]] ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts > "AI people try to build models of the parts we do understand." > **— Roger Schank**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/AI Models Only the Parts of Thought We Understand by Roger Schank|AI Models Only the Parts of Thought We Understand by Roger Schank]] > "A human player can make generalizations and describe why certain types of moves are good, and use that to teach a human player." > **— Rodney A. Brooks**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Risk Debate/Mistaking Performance For Competence Misleads Estimates Of AIs 21st Century Promise And Danger by Rodney A. Brooks|Mistaking Performance For Competence Misleads Estimates Of AIs 21st Century Promise And Danger by Rodney A. Brooks]] > "So yes, in the obvious sense, technology may become superintelligent, and elect to annihilate or enslave us." > **— Beatrice Golomb**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Existential Risk/Technology May Become Superintelligent and Turn Against Us by Beatrice Golomb|Technology May Become Superintelligent and Turn Against Us by Beatrice Golomb]] > "The Singularity—the fateful moment when AI surpasses its creators in intelligence and takes over the world—is a meme worth pondering." > **— Daniel C. Dennett**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/The Singularity Is a Meme Worth Examining by Daniel C. Dennett|The Singularity Is a Meme Worth Examining by Daniel C. Dennett]] > "Most such prophecies are grounded in a false analogy between human nature and computer nature, or natural intelligence and artificial intelligence." > **— Michael Shermer**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/When It Comes To AI, Think Protopia, Not Utopia Or Dystopia by Michael Shermer|When It Comes To AI, Think Protopia, Not Utopia Or Dystopia by Michael Shermer]] > “My job is to design and build quantum computers, computers that store and process information at the level of individual atoms. Even at the current rapid rates of progress of current computer technology, with the computer components halving in size every two years or less, and computers doubling in power over the same time, quantum computers should not be available for forty years. Yet we are building simple quantum computers today. I could tell you that quantum computers will drastically change the way the world works during our lifetime. But I'm not going to do that, for the simple reason that I have no idea whether it's true or not.” > **— Seth Lloyd**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING?”* [[reminders/Information/Quantum Computers Defied Forty-Year Predictions by Seth Lloyd|Quantum Computers Defied Forty-Year Predictions by Seth Lloyd]] > “Typically, my beliefs about big issues change in small steps. Ideally, these steps should approximate a random walk, like the stock market. It should be impossible for me to predict how my beliefs on some topic will change in the future. If I believed that a year hence I will assign a higher probability to some hypothesis than I do today — why, in that case I could raise the probability right away. Given knowledge of what I will believe in the future, I would defer to the beliefs of my future self, provided that I think my future self will be better informed than I am now and at least as rational.” > **— Nick Bostrom**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?”* [[reminders/Information/Rational Beliefs Should Defer to a Better-Informed Future Self by Nick Bostrom|Rational Beliefs Should Defer to a Better-Informed Future Self by Nick Bostrom]] ## Sources / Provenance - Developed through [[articles/Beyond the Sea|Beyond the Sea]] and the linked corpus.