= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bongo comments on Take heed, for it is a trap - 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 (187)
No. Something like "Bayesian reasoning is better than science" would work.
Not "thousands". "Astronomically many" would work.
That's the accelerating change, not the intelligence explosion school of singularity. Only the latter is popular around here.
Add "for sufficiently many dust-specks".
I also agree with lessdazed's first three criticisms.
--
Other than these, it's not a half-bad summary!
In http://lesswrong.com/lw/qa/the_dilemma_science_or_bayes/ Yudkowsky argues that you have to choose and that sometimes science is just plainly wrong. I find his arguments persuasive.
Geez, I said "fraction of a second" for a reason.
Of course. And the accelerating change school of singularity provides the deadline. Friendly AI has to be solved BEFORE computers become so fast moderately intelligent people can brute force an AI.
Even Omega is sometimes wrong. You failed to argue for your claim.
"Fraction" has wrong connotations for this to fix the problem.