= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) - 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 (244)
Most people don't report about these kinds of things either. The correct prior is not the frequency of elaborate lies among all statements of an average person, but the frequency of lies among the relevant class of dubious statements. Of course, what constitutes the relevant class may be disputed.
Anyway, I agree with Hanson that it is not low prior probability which makes a claim dubious in the relevant sense, but rather the fact that the speaker may be motivated to say it for reasons independent of its truth. In such cases, I don't think the claim is extraordinary evidence, and I consider this to be such a case. Probably not much more can be said without writing down the probabilities which I'd prefer not to, but am willing to do it if you insist.
In order to allow this argument.
When talking about games without an explicit score, "I almost won" is a very fuzzy phrase which can be translated to "I lost" without real loss of meaning.
I don't think there's any point in treating the "almost victory" as anything other than a defeat, for either the people who believe or disbelieve him.
If I am interested in the question of whether winning is possible in the game, "almost victory" and "utter defeat" have very different meaning for me. Why would I need explicit score?