cousin_it comments on Reference class of the unclassreferenceable - Less Wrong

25 Post author: taw 08 January 2010 04:13AM

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

Comments (150)

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

Comment author: cousin_it 09 January 2010 01:24:09PM *  3 points [-]

I think taw asked about reference classes of predictions. It's easy to believe in penicillin after it's been invented.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 10 January 2010 04:24:16AM 4 points [-]

People invented it because they were LOOKING for antibiotics explicitly. Fleming had previously found interferon, had cultivated slides where he could see growth irregularities very well, etc. The claim of fortuitous discovery is basically false modesty (see "Discovering" by Robert Root-Bernstein).

Comment author: Technologos 09 January 2010 08:03:24PM 3 points [-]

Even if we prefer to frame the reference class that way, we can instead note that anybody who predicted that things would remain the way they are (in any of the above categories) would have been wrong. People making that prediction in the last century have been wrong with increasing speed. As Eliezer put it, "beliefs that the future will be just like the past" have a zero success rate.

Perhaps the inventions listed above suggest that it's unwise to assign 0% chance to anything on the basis of present nonexistence, even if you could construct a reference class that has that success rate.

Either way, people who predicted that human life would be lengthened considerably, that humanity would fundamentally change in structure, or that some people would interact with beings that appear nigh-omnipotent have all been right with some non-zero success rate, and there's no particular reason to reject those data.

Comment author: cousin_it 11 January 2010 03:15:40PM *  3 points [-]

The negation of "a Singularity will occur" is not "everything will stay the same", it's "a Singularity as you describe it probably won't occur". I've no idea why you (and Eliezer elsewhere in the thread) are making this obviously wrong argument.

Comment author: Technologos 11 January 2010 06:12:18PM 0 points [-]

Perhaps I was simply unclear. Both my immediately prior comment and its grandparent were arguing only that there should be a nonzero expectation of a technological Singularity, even from a reference class standpoint.

The reference class of predictions about the Singularity can, as I showed in the grandparent, include a wide variety of predictions about major changes in the human condition. The complement or negation of that reference class is a class of predictions that things will remain largely the same, technologically.

Often, when people appear to be making an obviously wrong argument in this forum, it's a matter of communication rather than massive logic failure.