= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clippy comments on To signal effectively, use a non-human, non-stoppable enforcer - 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 (164)
Good to know Clippy hasn't read Judea Pearl yet.
Meaning my reasoning skills would be advanced by reading something? So I made an error? Yes, I did. That's the point.
The comment you are replying to is a reductio ad absurdum. I was not endorsing the claim that it follows that a paperclip truck probably overturned. I was showing that logical equivalence is not the same as causal ("counterfactual") equivalence.
FWIW, I understood that you were presenting an argument to criticize its conclusion. I still think that you haven't read Pearl (at least not carefully) because, among other things, your putative causal diagram has arrows pointing to exogenous variables.
I puted no such diagram; rather, you puted a logical statement that you claimed represented the decision theory I was referring to. See also my reply here.
I thought you had because you said
I took this to mean that you were treating P <=> (Q <=> P) and Q as causal networks, but distinct ones.
You also said
I took this to mean that P was an exogenous variable in a causal network.
I apologize for the misinterpretation.
More generally, are you interested in increasing your intelligence, or do you think that would be a distraction from directly increasing the number of paperclips?