FeepingCreature comments on Feed the spinoff heuristic! - Less Wrong

49 Post author: CarlShulman 09 February 2012 07:41AM

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

Comments (85)

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

Comment author: FeepingCreature 12 February 2012 10:08:37PM *  2 points [-]

That's my point, I don't expect to be able to make consistently differing observations! If his theory is correct, we still wouldn't be able to reliably exploit that feature.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying even if it's right it's useless to believe.

I mean if there is some form of reliable Psi I'll have a party because that'd be awesome.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 13 February 2012 01:48:12PM 4 points [-]

I think you should look more closely at the arguments I made above: my hypothesis makes testable predictions, but if verified the evidence isn't reliably communicable to other people. By my hypothesis psi is perhaps "exploitable" but I cringe at the thought of trying to "exploit" a little-understood agentic process in the case that it actually exists.

Comment author: Desrtopa 13 February 2012 01:50:25PM 0 points [-]

but I cringe at the thought of trying to "exploit" a little-understood agentic process in the case that it actually exists.

Why?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 13 February 2012 02:05:28PM 5 points [-]

A safety heuristic. Just say no to demons, for the same reason you should say no to drugs until you figure out what they are, what they do, and the intentions of the agent offering them to you.