= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Blueberry comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 2 - 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 (534)
The problem is that a positive result would only show that a specific sequence of attacks worked well. It wouldn't show that "chi" or other unusual models were required to explain it; there could be perfectly normal explanations for why a series of attacks was effective.
That's why I suggested writing down both techniques which should work according to the model and techniques which should not work according to the model.
It's conceivable that imagining chi is the best (or at least a very good) way of being able to do subtle attacks.