= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - 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 (613)
The "laugh test" is not rational. I think that, if the majority of people fully understood the context of such statements, they would not consider them funny.
The context asked 'what kind of things a typical smart person would find uncredible'. This is a perfect example of such a thing.
A typical smart person would find the laugh test credible? We must have different definitions of "smart."
The topic was the banned topic and the deleted posts - not the laugh test. If you explained what happened to an outsider - they would have a hard time believing the story - since the explanation sounds so totally crazy and ridiculous.
I'll try to test that, but keep in mind that my standards for "fully understanding" something are pretty high. I would have to explain FAI theory, AI-FOOM, CEV, what SIAI was, etc.
(Voted you back up to 0 here.)
I think you are right about the laugh test itself.