Randaly comments on Why We Can't Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They're Unbiased) - Less Wrong

75 Post author: HoldenKarnofsky 18 August 2011 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (249)

Comments (249)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 18 August 2011 06:49:12PM *  -2 points [-]

Did I summarize your point correctly:

  • an instinctive reaction of the type "you are so full of it" to any poorly supported extravagant claim has a fancy name "Bayesian adjustment" and so can be trusted
  • singularity research is one such claim
  • GiveWell's charity metrics penalize charities with high uncertainties
  • Give to GiveWell if you want to be sure your donation is not wasted

Edit: not saying that I agree with this, just checking if my understanding is not off-base.

Comment author: Randaly 18 August 2011 10:00:06PM 4 points [-]

Actually, I had a negative reaction to this comment for the opposite reason- it seemed overly critical of the post. The first point seemed to be ignoring a fair amount of his argument, and instead focusing on criticizing what he named his method; the last point seemed to me to be impugning Holden's motives based off something he never actually said.

Comment author: shminux 18 August 2011 11:30:39PM 2 points [-]

thanks!

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit