= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Muehlhauser-Wang Dialogue - 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 (284)
I have no reason to suspect that other people's use of the absurdity heuristic should cause me to reevaluate every argument I've ever seen.
That a de novo AGI will be nothing like a human child in terms of how to make it safe is an antiprediction in that it would take a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest otherwise, and yet Wang just assumes this without having any evidence at all. I can only conclude that the surface analogy is the entire content of the claim.
If he were just stupid, I'd have no right to be indignant at his basic mistake. He is clearly an intelligent person.
You are not making any sense. Think about how ridiculous your comment must sound to me.
(I'm starting to hate that you've become a fixture here.)
As a general heuristic, if you agree that someone is both intelligent and highly educated, and has made a conclusion that you consider to be a basic mistake, there are a variety of reasonable responses, one of the most obvious of which is to question if the issue in question falls under the category of a basic mistake or even as a mistake at all. Maybe you should update your models?