Vladimir_Nesov comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - Less Wrong

27 Post author: XiXiDu 01 November 2010 02:07PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (218)
Tags: siai artificial intelligence existential risks

Comments (218)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 November 2010 06:37:55PM 4 points [-]

it would be more precise to say that he argues positions based on evidence which can also support other positions, and therefore isn't convincing evidence to a Bayesian.

What do you mean? Evidence can't support both sides of an argument, so how can one inappropriately use such impossible evidence?

Comment author: pjeby 02 November 2010 06:46:13PM 4 points [-]

Evidence can't support both sides of an argument

What do you mean, "both"?

Comment author: wedrifid 02 November 2010 06:48:49PM 0 points [-]

What do you mean? Evidence can't support both sides of an argument, so how can one inappropriately use such impossible evidence?

It would be a mistake assume that PJ was limiting his evaluation to positions selected from one of those 'both sides' of a clear dichotomy. Particularly since PJ has just been emphasizing the relevance of 'privileging the hypothesis' to bayesian reasoning and also said 'other positions' plural. This being the case no 'impossible evidence' is involved.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 November 2010 06:54:37PM *  1 point [-]

I see. But in that case, there is no problem with use of such evidence.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 November 2010 07:00:49PM 0 points [-]

That's true. I believe that PJ was commenting on how such evidence is used. In this context that means PJ would require that the evidence be used more rather than just for a chosen position. The difference between a 'Traditional Rationalist' debater and a (non-existent, idealized) unbiased Bayesian.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit