ciphergoth comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong

25 [deleted] 14 April 2012 09:08PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (513)
Tags: meta

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 April 2012 10:36:06AM 12 points [-]

Excellent idea - done. Thank you!

Comment author: Rain 19 April 2012 12:43:17AM *  2 points [-]

Result from Ron Maimon's review of the QM sequence:

I skimmed a majority of the articles, and there are no glaring errors that I could find, but there is an unnecessary verbosity which is best eliminated by reading a terser introduction to the Everett interpretation. The amount of text that is presented is not commensurate with the amount of insight.

(more at the link from ciphergoth's post)

Comment author: XiXiDu 15 April 2012 11:28:19AM *  1 point [-]

If you want an independent evaluation of the Sequences by physicists, I suggest that you post this as a question at Physics Stack Exchange.

Excellent idea - done. Thank you!

You could also ask for an independent evaluation of AI risks here.

Comment author: ciphergoth 15 April 2012 12:44:01PM 7 points [-]

That seems less valuable. The QM sequences are largely there to set out what is supposed to be an existing, widespread understanding of QM. No such understanding exists for AI risk.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit