Thomas comments on Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Ask Your Questions - Less Wrong

16 Post author: MichaelGR 11 November 2009 03:00AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (682)

Comments (682)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Thomas 14 November 2009 04:29:19PM 0 points [-]

Say that "Yudkowsky has no real clue" and that those "AI academics are right"? Just another crackpot among many "well educated", no big thing. Not worth to mention, almost.

Say, that this crackpot is of the Edisonian kind! In that case it is something well worth to mention.

Important enough to at least discuss with him ON THE TOPICS, and not on some meta level. Meta level discussion is sometimes (as here IMHO), just a waste of time.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 14 November 2009 07:25:26PM * 2 points [-]

I'm not sure what you mean by your first few sentences. But I disagree with your last two. It is good for me to see this debate.

Comment author: Thomas comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 November 2009 08:24:30PM * 2 points [-]

You get zilch, in the case of Hanson (and the Academia) is right. Zero in the informative sense. You get quite a bit, if Yudkowsky is right.

Verifying Hanson (& the so called Academia) means no new information.

You get not needing to run around trying to save the world and a pony if Hanson is right. It's not useful to be deluded.

Comment author: Thomas comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 14 November 2009 08:55:23PM * -1 points [-]

You are confused.

P.S. I don't want to get into a discussion; I believe it's better to just state a judgment even if without a useful explanation than to not state a judgment at all; however it may be perceived negatively for those obscure status-related reasons (see "offense" on the wiki), so I predict that this comment would've been downvoted without this addendum, and not impossibly still will be with it. This "P.S." is dedicated to all the relevant occasions, not this one alone where I could've used the time to actually address the topic.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 14 November 2009 11:29:12PM 1 point [-]

I believe it's better to just state a judgment even if without a useful explanation than to not state a judgment at all

And a simple downvote isn't sufficient?

Comment author: RobinZ 14 November 2009 11:47:11PM 1 point [-]

If I'm reading the conversation correctly, Vladimir Nesov is indicating with his remark that he is no longer interested in continuing. If he were not a major participant in the thread, a downvote would be appropriate, but as a major participant, more is required of him.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 November 2009 12:24:22AM -1 points [-]

and not impossibly still will be with it

I downvoted it. If it included two quotes from the context followed by 'You are confused' I would have upvoted it.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 15 November 2009 12:29:05AM 0 points [-]

I initially tried that, but simple citation didn't make the point any more rigorous.

Comment author: Thomas 14 November 2009 09:05:58PM -2 points [-]

I am not confused and I don't want a discussion either. I only state, that a new content and a new context usually comes out from outside the kosher set of views.

Of course, most of the outsiders are delusive poor devils. Yet, they are almost the only source of new information.

Thomas comments on Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Ask Your Questions - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (682)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (682)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login