multifoliaterose comments on Exponentiation goes wrong first - Less Wrong

10 [deleted] 14 December 2010 04:13AM

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

Comments (81)

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

Comment author: multifoliaterose 15 December 2010 06:53:43AM *  4 points [-]

I? Mistaken? You should notice your confusion a little harder before postulating anything so improbable.

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Do you intend this to be taken together with a wink of an eye? Or are you making a serious claim that the probability that you're mistaken in any given instance is very low?

Comment author: WrongBot 15 December 2010 10:07:19AM 0 points [-]

He's joking, p > .99

Comment author: Emile 15 December 2010 10:43:50AM 3 points [-]

I didn't read it as joking (more as a form of "Ha ha only serious"), so we should probably update our probabilities ...

I know that if I was disagreeing with Eliezer over maths, I would think twice before deciding he's mistaken, though I haven't followed enough of the details of this case to tell who is right and who is wrong (it's a case of "Was Eliezer justified in thinking that Sewing-Machine was not justified in thinking that Eliezer was mistaken").

That doesn't mean I think Eliezer is always right, but rather that I think misunderstanding and subtle differences in use of terminology are more likely explanations.

Comment author: WrongBot 15 December 2010 12:24:54PM 2 points [-]

I didn't read that line as having a strong connection to the rest of the conversation; it seemed like a (self-deprecating) one-liner preceding something more serious. I usually assume that Eliezer isn't being self-aggrandizing, due to e.g. this comment.

I'm definitely in the same boat as you are when it comes to the prospect of disagreeing with Eliezer about math.

Comment author: ata 15 December 2010 08:15:22PM *  0 points [-]

it seemed like a (self-deprecating) one-liner preceding something more serious.

That word, "self-deprecating" — I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)

(But, more seriously: no, I think I do know what you mean.)

Comment author: WrongBot 15 December 2010 09:56:50PM 1 point [-]

Hold on, I'm confused. Self-deprecation is criticism of oneself and self-deprecating humor involves making jokes at one's own expense. Eliezer was exaggerating his opinion of himself as a way of poking fun at the very high esteem that some people hold him in, a state of affairs with which he is at the very least uncomfortable. Does it not make sense to say that he was making a self-deprecating joke about his reputation?

Comment author: [deleted] 15 December 2010 10:11:19PM 6 points [-]

I don't know to what extent community norms around here allow me to make this request, but: can you guys start a new post on this topic, before my thoughtful and informative contribution turns into an area with 40 nice comments about Peano arithmetic and a thousand about Eliezer Yudkowsky?

Suggested title: "Remarks on a possibly arrogant comment made by Eliezer Yudkowsky."

Comment author: WrongBot 15 December 2010 10:34:12PM 0 points [-]

My thoughts on the matter are thoroughly exhausted, so you have nothing further to fear from me in this regard.

Comment author: ata 15 December 2010 10:14:58PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, I got that you meant it that way. I was just referencing the fact that, on the surface level, declaring oneself practically infallible is not very self-deprecating at all.