= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on LW/OB Quotes - Fall 2009 - 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 (48)
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.
Thankyou Silas. I reversed my vote. Since these are quotes from LW the context does matter (to me).
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 :-)
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.)
Oh. My mistake :-/