= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Steve_Rayhawk comments on Formalizing informal logic - 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 (22)
Do you mean formal arguments that someone should do an experiment because knowledge of the results would improve future decision-making? These would be a special case of formal arguments that someone should do something.
Do you mean that if someone automated the experiments there might be an AI danger? I know a lot of arguments for ways there could be dangers similar to AI dangers from these kinds of tools, but they are mostly about automation of the reasoning.
yes, for example.
I was just pointing out that the two are similar problems: improving human group decisionmaking using formal tools vs. making a thinking machine. The implications of this are complex, and could include both dangers and benefits. One benefit is that as AI gets more advanced, better decisionmaking tools will become available. For example, the notion of a "cognitive bias" probably depends causally upon us having a notion of normative rationality to compare humans with.