= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JGWeissman comments on Reply to Holden on 'Tool AI' - 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 (348)
The analogy on its own is just an assertion. That assertion is backed up by detailed points in the rest of the article demonstrating the asserted similarities, like the required skills of looking at a mathematical specification of a program and predicting how that program will really behave, finding methods of choosing actions/plans that are less expensive than searching the entire solution space but still return a result high in the preference order, and specifying the preference order to actually reflect what we want.
Right, but the analogy itself doesn't demonstrate why the assertion is true--see my other reply to thomblake. Yudkowsky's analogy is like a political pundit comparing the economy to a roller coaster, but then using quotes from famous economists to support his predictions about what the economy is going to do. The analogy is superfluous and is being used as a persuasive tool, not an actual argument.
I agree that the analogy was not an argument, but I disagree that it isn't allowed to be an explanation of the position one is arguing for. The analogy itself doesn't have to demonstrate why the assertion is true, because the supporting arguments do that.