Will_Newsome comments on This post is for sacrificing my credibility! - Less Wrong

-29 Post author: Will_Newsome 02 June 2012 12:08AM

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

Comments (341)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 03 June 2012 03:10:25AM *  0 points [-]

More precisely, though, I thought the subject was worth your consideration, because I hadn't seen you in decision theory discussion. (Sorry, I don't mean to be or come across as defensive here. I'm a little surprised your model of me doesn't predict me asking those as trick questions. But only a little.)

Re deeper problems, there are metaphysical problems that are deeper and should be obvious, but the tack I wanted to take was purely epistemological, such that there's less wiggle room. Many people reject UDT because "values shouldn't affect anticipation", and I think I can neatly argue against anthropics without hitting up against that objection. Which would be necessary to convince the philosophers, I think.

Comment author: Nighzmarquls 03 June 2012 03:14:26AM 1 point [-]

Compensating over duplicitous behavior in models can tend to clog up simulations and lead to processing halting.

I generally would take all statements as reflective of exactly what some one means if at all possible.

Its also great fun to short circuit sarcasm in a similar way.