= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GuySrinivasan comments on Real-Life Anthropic Weirdness - 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 (86)
That's not what's at issue. The statement still says that the chance of winning is so low as not to be worth talking about. That implies that one does not calculate expected utility. My interpretation is correct. Eliezer has written 3 comments in reply, and is still trying to present it as if what is at issue here is that I consistently misrepresent him.
I am not misrepresenting him. My interpretation <of what he said, not of what he meant> is correct. As has probably often been the case.
"That implies that one does not calculate expected utility."
My impression has been that Eliezer means X and writes "Y" where Y could be interpreted to mean that Eliezer means either X or Z, you say "Eliezer means Z which implies this other obviously wrong thing", and then Eliezer becomes upset because you have misinterpreted him and you become upset because he is ignoring your noting of the ambiguity of "Y". Then hilarity is spawned.
A data point for ya.
Ambiguities can simply be asked. I might or might not answer depending on whether I had time. Speaking for a person is a different matter.
The comment that started this now-tedious thread said:
Sounds like asking to me. I clearly was not claiming to know what you were thinking.