= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on What is the best compact formalization of the argument for AI risk from fast takeoff? - 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 (20)
I created a new page on the wiki to collect links like the Big Scary Idea one: Criticism of the sequences. If anyone knows of more links to intelligent disagreement with ideas prevailing on Less Wrong, please add them!
Well, people like user:wedrifid disagree but I don't think that the following posts are fallacious (or at least I haven't heard counterarguments that would render those posts obsolete):
(I am currently writing up a post for my personal blog where I list all requirements that need to be true in conjunction for SIAI to be the best choice when it comes to charitable giving.)
Be careful, it's very common for people to gerrymander such probability estimates by unjustifiably assuming complete independence or complete dependence of certain terms. (This is true even if the "probability estimate" is only implicit in the qualitative structure of the argument.) If people think that's what you're doing then they're likely to disregard your conclusions even if the conclusions could have been supported by a weaker argument.
I've just pointed out something very similar.
I can confirm this. Or at least the second of the links is fallacious. The first was merely overwhelmingly weak (and so only fallacious to the extent that strong conclusions were declared.)
XiXiDu has also replied with Risks from AI and Charitable Giving.