= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on When is further research needed? - 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 (80)
Allow me to revise your rewrite. "Ceteris paribus, receiving information cannot hurt you. In some non-ceteris-paribus circumstances, receiving information might hurt you."
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I am objecting to. I agree it is a good heuristic to receive information. This is not what the post is about; it is not about ceteris paribus. Emphasis added:
In a post claiming to offer proofs, I take these universal qualifiers at face value. They may be true in the simplified model. They are not true in many other models, one of which I have linked.
Since I was downvoted so very severely, I'll add another link, an entire paper by Nick Bostrom on all the kinds of information which receiving can hurt you: http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf
In which case, you might as well include the costs for actually figuring it out.