= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on Criticisms of intelligence explosion - 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 (123)
There are two kinds of people here. Those who thinks that an intelligence explosion is unlikely, and those who thinks it is uncontrollable.
I think it is likely AND controllable.
From which we can infer that you aren't here.
Is here the fourth kind also? Those who thinks the IE is unlikely but controllable?
I suspect that such people would not be terribly motivated to post about the IE in the first place, so available evidence is consistent with both their presence and their absence.
But it's weak evidence of their absence, because them posting would be strong evidence of their presence.
(nods) Certainly. But weak enough to be negligible compared to most people's likely priors.
I sometimes feel like we should simply have a macro that expands to this comment, its parent, and its grandparent.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Is it something like,
?
The closest thing we currently have is linking to the Absence of Evidence post.
Something like, but more "the evidence is consistent with X and ~X, but favors X very weakly (because absence of evidence is evidence of absence), but sufficiently weakly that the posterior probability of X is roughly equal to the prior probability of X."
But I was mostly joking.
I think it's likely, controllable, but unlikely to be controlled. That means I'm in your faction and I would bet we're in the largest one.
You are right. An additional bit is needed for this description. How likely is that it will be controlled? Agree, not that likelly.