= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Rationality Quotes: January 2011 - 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 (268)
Of course. One of the things that learning logic from philosophy teaches you is to be nitpicky about deriving causation from conditionals. A truth table, for better or worse, contains no field for "strong implication contradicted".
I don't think I derived this implication from the `I think, therefore I am,' I think I got it from how it happened right after, though I can't be sure about that specific instance of causation in my brain.
Best summary of the justification for Bayesian AI I've ever heard.
How many Less Wrongers does it take to ruin a joke?
None. Any general intelligence should be able to do it.
Two, judging by the number of people between your comment and the top one, with the top comment being excluded because the ruining of a joke is defined not to include the initial statement of the joke and, due to the way in which you mentioned the ruining of the joke, you presumably were commenting on an existing situation, rather than one which you had just completed ;)
Hmm, it was only one that time.
Really? What if they totally mess up the punchline? Or accidentally use a synonym of the word that was being set up for a pun?
Good point, I did assume that the joke was told correctly.
AUGH