= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Giles comments on Offense versus harm minimization - 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 (417)
These are good points. I was just curious as to why the conversation wasn't framed as "accept that offense is a type of harm; now let's discuss the winning strategy"
Probably because most commentors weren't aware that their response to the situation was a case of what the algorithm feels like from inside. They determined a winning move, but in status games (and bargaining Schelling style) an unreasonable or irrational attachment to a winning move is much more effective than selecting that move because it's the best.