= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TrE comments on Better Disagreement - 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 (84)
I'm not certain whether DH-central-point (DH6) is so much different from DH-improve-then-disagree (DH7).
If DH5 is nitpicking (I'll call it DH-nitpicking), then DH-central-point is not. So DH-central-point would mean attacking what the author really wanted to say. But then, what's DH-improve-then-disagree? It can't really be filling the holes in the arguments of the author because then we'd arrive at DH-central-point, wouldn't we? Are there examples that clarify the proposed distinction between DH-central-point and DH-improve-then-refute?
DH6 means attacked the central point of what the author actually said. Just filling in holes in their argument would still fall under that, I think. DH7 means substantially improving the overall structure of their argument (introducing totally new supporting reasoning, for example) and then attacking the result.
In the ideal case DH7 is about attacking the version of an argument that would have been presented by a superintelligence trying to convince you of something, since that's presumably the version of the argument that best relates to the truth.
Not always, not even too often.
Perhaps amend that to "an honest superintelligence." If you still disagree with that I'd like to hear your reasoning.
The person who applies DH7 is not a superintelligence? Just a rough guess.
Hence "in the ideal case." I'm guessing that they're referring to the idea that someone very much smarter than you could convince you of anything by simply lying very convincingly.