= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Trouble With "Good" - 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 (131)
I saw a presentation where someone took thousands of English words, placed them in a high-dimensional space based on, I think, what other words they co-occurred with, ran PCA on this space, and analyzed the top 4 resulting dimensions. The top dimension was "good/bad".
You already said so in this very thread :)
This sounds like semantic differential research. The standard finding is three dimensions: good-bad (evaluation), strong-weak (potency), and active-passive (activity).
Do you remember the other three?