= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
Well, that's not really an argument - it's more of a conditional statement.
But if you were to take it as an argument, then it's clearly skipping a step, but not a nonobvious one. It seems like you'd make more headway arguing that the argument (with implicit premise included) is unsound.
Clearly it's at least logically possible that an INT of 15 is good, while 14 or 16 are bad.
I like the D&D reference, but for all practical purposes therein, 14 and 15 are just alike, except with regards to how far an increase or decrease of a given size will get you. So while 15 could be good while 16 is bad, 14 could not be bad while 15 is good (unless 16 was also good, and 15 was better than 14 by virtue of it being easy to get from 15 to 16).
Regarding D&D, what Annoyance said.
I was just taking the numbers to be arbitrary, and didn't notice that I was making a D&D reference. ha.
And as long as we're talking D&D 3x, there's some virtue in odd-numbered stats. If someone hits you for 1 point of ability damage, you don't need to recalculate anything.
Depends on edition.