paper-machine comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - Less Wrong

40 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 August 2011 07:16AM

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

Comments (276)

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

Comment author: shokwave 25 August 2011 03:36:37AM 8 points [-]

(That quote is commonly used by Science and is technically inaccurate under Bayes, in case you were wondering.)

Comment author: [deleted] 25 August 2011 04:36:05AM *  1 point [-]

And how else should I update after reading two self-selected, subjective assessments? This has a perfectly reasonable Bayesian interpretation.

EDIT: Also note that the grandparent was posted before AnnaSalamon actually fixed the problem at hand.

EDIT x2: And while I'm endlessly editing this comment, let me note that most of this drama could have been averted if someone had just posted the damn data instead of coming up with multiple, bad excuses. Lots of guilty parties, only a couple heroes (in my book, at least).

Comment author: shokwave 25 August 2011 07:15:32AM 4 points [-]

And how else should I update after reading two self-selected, subjective assessments?

Very little. I was explaining why your comment was downvoted so much. I said "technically inaccurate" as opposed to "wrong" because I am sympathetic to your point of view; it is almost no data. But it is a little bit of data.