Yvain comments on LW/OB Quotes - Fall 2009 - Less Wrong

2 Post author: thomblake 01 September 2009 03:11PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (48)
Tags: lwob_quotes

Comments (48)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Yvain 05 September 2009 12:55:43PM *  6 points [-]

In my experience, beginning math students simply expect their nice-sounding procedures to work. For example, they expect to be able to add fractions straight across. When you tell them they can’t, they demand to know why they can’t, as though most nice-sounding theorems are true, and if you want to claim that one isn’t, the burden of proof is on you. It is only after students gain considerable mathematical sophistication (or experience getting burned by expectations that don’t pan out) that they place the burden of proofs on the theorems.

-- Anna Salamon

Comment author: SilasBarta 05 September 2009 02:58:56PM -1 points [-]

Um, keep in mind that that was in the context of Salamon evading an answer to a serious problem with her exposition: specifically, the question of what a could/should/would agent is not.

So the full context was more like:

Critic: What other kinds of agents could there be, besides “could”/“would”/“should” agents?

AnnaSalamon: Come now, AI people get it. Your question is like thinking you can just add fractions straight across.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2009 01:47:24PM 0 points [-]

Thankyou Silas. I reversed my vote. Since these are quotes from LW the context does matter (to me).

Comment author: SilasBarta 15 September 2009 03:48:22PM *  -1 points [-]

And I thank you as well. It's good to know you apply that standard consistently, since you'll probably recall it working against me a few days ago :-)

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2009 04:16:56PM -1 points [-]

If you're talking about the devil's advocate sub-thread I actually up-voted your comments in that context. From what I recall my tongue in cheek replies were actually intended to emphasise and expand upon a point you were making.

(But I may well have replied to other comments of yours without taking particular note of the author.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 15 September 2009 04:28:21PM -1 points [-]

Oh. My mistake :-/

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit