TheOtherDave comments on Criticisms of intelligence explosion - Less Wrong

15 Post author: lukeprog 22 November 2011 05:42PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (123)
Tags: singularity

Comments (123)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 23 November 2011 03:55:17PM 0 points [-]

(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.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 24 November 2011 12:35:54AM *  0 points [-]

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,

There should be some piece of LW jargon encapsulating the idea that "the evidence is consistent with X and ~X, but favors X very weakly because absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

?

The closest thing we currently have is linking to the Absence of Evidence post.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 November 2011 01:26:12AM 0 points [-]

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit