= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - 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 (1430)
We don't mind. You aren't actually going to kill babies and you aren't able to make it legal either (ie. "mostly harmless"). Just don't count too much on your anonymity! Assume that everything you say on the internet will come back to haunt you in the future - when trying to get a job, for example. Or when you are unjustly accused of murder in Italy.
EDIT: Pardon me, when I say "we" don't mind I am speaking for myself and guessing at an overall consensus. I suspect there are one or two who do mind - but that's ok and I consider it their problem.
Fair enough. But my paranoia's only going to go so far; if the choice is a policy of speaking up in relatively accepting communities with no obvious bearing on future life prospects or a policy of remaining silent, I'll take the first one.
That only has a certainty approaching 1 if we all went and forgot about CEV and related prospects.
Really? What's your estimate of the probability that Bakkot's inclusion in a CEV-calculating-algorythm's target mind-space will make it more likely for the resulting CEV to tolerate infanticide?
Pretty negligible, but still orders of magnitude above Bakkot just altering society to tolerate infanticide on his own.
I would tend to agree for what it's worth.
I think I'm not understanding you.
Call P1 the probability that Bakkot's inclusion in a CEV-calculating-algorythm's target mind-space will make it more likely for the resulting CEV to tolerate infanticide. Call P2 the probability that Bakkot isn't capable of making infanticide legal, disregarding P1.
You seem to be saying P1 approximately equals 0 (which is what I understand "negligible" to mean), and P2 approximately equals 1, and that P2-P1 does not approximately equal 1.
I don't see how all three of those can be true at the same time.
Edit: if the downvotes are meant to indicate I'm wrong, I'd love a correction as well. OTOH, if they're just meant to indicate the desire for fewer comments like these, that's fine.
Where do you get "P2 approximately equals 1"?
Multiheaded said "That only has a certainty approaching 1 if we all went and forgot about CEV and related prospects."
I understand "that" to refer to "bakkot isn't able to make make infanticide legal".
I conclude that the probability that Bakkot isn't capable of making infanticide legal, if we forget about CEV and related prospects, is approximately 1.
P2 is the probability that Bakkot isn't capable of making infanticide legal, if we disregard the probability that Bakkot's inclusion in a CEV-calculating-algorythm's target mind-space will make it more likely for the resulting CEV to tolerate infanticide.
I conclude that P2 is approximately 1.