Is there any erratum for the "From AI to Zombies" book? There are so many essays, and many of them are written more than 10 years ago. It seems very likely that since then the errors or imprecisions were discovered.

To be specific, I have a very low belief in the chapter on quantum mechanics. It discusses just Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretation, ignoring all others that were already existing at this moment. What about Quantum Bayesianism, for example?

And two more personal accounts:

1) A couple of years ago I was at the conference, where few talks discussed this quite famous gedankenexperiment. When they were looking at different interpretations, according to them the many-world one was quite vaguely formulated, not allowing to make a definitive answer in the problem they considered. 

2) About five years ago I talked with my friend about "From AI to Zombies". He was studying interpretations of quantum mechanics way more than I did. He said something like "Great book but the quantum mechanics chapter is over-simplified".  


New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment

1 Answers sorted by

The book is derived from a series of postings, and the postings have comments, and the comments point out errors. But that doesn't add up to a set of officially accepted errata.

21 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 2:40 PM

A lot of the findings of the "soft" sciences, including psychology, didn't survive the replication crisis. There should be material for errata about that part by now.

I found much of the quantum physics sequence confusing, but Sean Carroll still makes a solid case for MWI.

New to LessWrong?