= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Argument - 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 (95)
Documenting my mental processes after reading this post (disclaimer: human introspection sucks, and mine is probably no exception):
Huh, this is one of the better versions of the Devil's advocate game I've ever encountered... Immediate upvote.
Huh, the poster analyzed their mistakes, learned from them and improved the challenge. Too bad I only have one upvote.
Clicking on the links... WTF, this is the girl who converted to Christianity (Catholicism? Really? Out of all the options available?) from Atheism a year or so ago... Anything she posts deserves a downvote...
Stop! What the hell am I doing? This is, like, falling prey to several biases at once. At least I should notice that I am confused. Unable to reconcile the "obviously dumb" conversion move with this quite clever post.
Wait, this is the substance of her post, to begin with!
Deciding to definitely keep the upvote and reserve judgment until after looking through the linked posts.
Ha!
I think the post is excellent, and I appreciated shminux's sharing his mental walkthrough.
On that same front, I find the Never-Trust-A-[Fill-in-the-blank] idea just bad. The fact that someone's wrong on something significant does not mean they are wrong on everything. This goes the other way; field experts often believe they have similar expertise on everything, and they don't.
One quibble with the OP: I don't think a computer can pass a Turing Test, and I don't think it's close. The main issues with some past tests are that some of the humans don't try hard to be human; there should be a reward for a human who gets called a human in those tests.
Finally, I no longer understand the divide between Discuss and Main. If this isn't Main-worthy, I don't get it. If we're making Main something different... what is it?
The difference between Discussion and Main is that Main is hard to find.
If it's in Main and not Recently Promoted, I don't know how you're supposed to ever see it -- is everybody else using RSS feeds or something?
I look at the sidebar on the right or visit http://lesswrong.com/r/all/recentposts/
Yeah, I use an RSS for Main.
There is a reward for Most Human Human (and a book by that same title I cite from in the longer talk I gave linked at the top). The computers can pass sometimes, and the author makes basically the same argument as you do -- the humans aren't trying hard enough to steer the conversation to hard topics.
It remains evidence, however; to ignore such is the fallacy of gray.
Yes, but it's almost certainly evidence that people on LW overweight relative to other evidence because atheism is an excessively salient feature of the local memeplex.
Interesting, I was under the impression that most people around here were fairly good about not doing this. However, it's possible I haven't been paying attention recently.
Even God can quote Bayes when it suits him.
Still upvoted for raw cleverness, though.
Bayes was a priest, after all. Now divine quote of gay Turing would be a different feat altogether.
... or polyamorous agnostic Russell, maybe?
(Also, Bayes was a Presbyterian minister — not a priest, which (in England) would imply Catholic or Anglican. It was the family trade; his father was also a minister.)
I'm not sure I know how to parse this.
Showing results for: Divine quotation of gay Turing
So? God is still willing to work with (and through) sinners.
It isn't my position. Merely one I translated into well formed English. Any questions should be directed to the original source.
The word I had trouble parsing was "of." I think ESRogs' hypothesis is probably correct, though.
That seems highly unlikely: it would make prase's comment not fit the context. I think you have been misled.
Oh, hmm. I got confused about what ESRogs' hypothesis actually implied. Never mind. Anyway, I agree with your interpretation but still think the original phrasing was quite confusing.
Very much so. Without context the intended meaning would definitely not be the top of the hypothesis list.
Wedrifid's interpretation is the intended one. I agree that the chosen formulation wasn't particularly clear.
I think that should be read as 'by' rather than 'of'.
You mean the Devil, surely.
Potato potato.
Huh, it works even better in text with undifferentiated spelling. I'll have to remember that one.
Thanks for being so real. That was refreshing.