= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Rational Health Optimization - 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 (76)
Downvoted for Kurzweilian faith and weasely wording of prediction.
It is not Kurzweil, it is rather Aubrey De Grey's pretty good execution of a "weak inside view" analysis. Longevity escape velocity, as he calls it. I have my own minor complaint about the "accelerated via the a Singularity" part, which is markedly not part of De Grey's analysis (assuming that the OP really wrote the above paragraph with De Grey in mind and not someone else).
That.
Ahh I can see why you might take objection to that - Singularity can be a vague term. Nonetheless, it does describe a range of future scenarios which I do believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant as quite possible, without considering specifics - it's actually good in this case to use a term that wraps a diverse set of related futures together.
I wouldn't have used it, because the term "singularity" makes me think of a sign saying "STOP: No humans beyond this point."
Yes I was hinting at longevity escape velocity, which doesn't depend on a Singularity per se, but a Singularity - meaning a vast increase in effective intelligence and computation - undoubtedly has a high probability of achieving longevity escape velocity, amongst other things.
I happen to believe the odds of achieving that escape velocity anytime soon without a vast increase in effective intelligence and computation are very low.
Is the ' probable, mid-century' part what you are dismissing as Kurzweilian faith? If so, I'm in agreement. (Along much the same lines as we discussed with respect to HP:MoR.)
Umm I actually I didn't use the word 'probable' - I said "reasonable bet". Do you think this justifies the term "Kurzweilian faith and weasely wording"?
In terms of expected benefits, even with low odds the Singularity can be a good bet that one should take into consideration in any future projections. I think it is irrational not to consider it.
Belief that a Singularity is extremely unlikely this century is just another belief in a set of future scenarios that one could assign the adjective 'faith' to.
Full agreement and retraction!
How do you get "Kurzweilian faith" out of "reasonable bet"?