= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
WrongBot comments on Exponentiation goes wrong first - 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 (81)
He's joking, p > .99
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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."
My thoughts on the matter are thoroughly exhausted, so you have nothing further to fear from me in this regard.
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.