= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI) - 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 (1270)
Is it just me, or do Luke and Eliezer's initial responses appear to send the wrong signals? From the perspective of an SI critic, Luke's comment could be interpreted as saying "for us, not being completely incompetent is worth bragging about", and Eliezer's as "we're so arrogant that we've only taken two critics (including Holden) seriously in our entire history". These responses seem suboptimal, given that Holden just complained about SI's lack of impressive accomplishments, and being too selective about whose feedback to take seriously.
I think it's unfair to take Eliezer's response as anything other than praise for this article. He noted already that he did not have time to respond properly.
And why even point out that a human's response to anything is "suboptimal"? It will be notable when a human does something optimal.
We do, on occasion, come up with optimal algorithms for things. Also, "suboptimal" usually means "I can think of several better solutions off the top of my head", not "This solution is not maximally effective".