= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on Counterfactual resiliency test for non-causal models - 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 (78)
That sort of stuff messes up any model.
I might predict that Obama will be elected next US president; or I might predict that I will be elected US president. Both of these prediction will be wrong if an asteroid wipes out the human population, but that doesn't mean that both are equally good.
Basically, what is there that could have messed up Moore's law that isn't the equivalent of "rocks fall, everybody dies"?
Aliens show up, give us their awesome technology.
But I take your point.
Unless rocks fell, most people died, then aliens showed up with gifts of hyper-advanced technology at the exact moment that Moore's Law would have predicted that level. That's sort of how the idea that "working to keep up" with Moore's Law strikes me.
What? No!
My point was that any game-changer, positive or negative, disrupts Moore's law. Alien hypertech is one such game changer.
EDIT: edited for clarity.
I know, I was just playfully nullifying the game-changer. (Although, aliens restoring Moore's law with hypertech is only slightly less likely than aliens with hypertech at any other point in time.)
Ah, I see.
Wait, what? Aliens restoring Moore's law is vastly less likely than the (admittedly minuscule) probability of them showing up at some other time.
So it's a...vast minisculity?
Vastly minuscule, yes.