wedrifid comments on Just Lose Hope Already - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 February 2007 12:39AM

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

Comments (76)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: shokwave 12 January 2011 12:55:06PM 3 points [-]

I think the kind of small probabilities Eliezer was talking about (not that he was specific) here is small in the sense that there is a small probability that evolution is wrong, there is a small probability that God exists, etc.

The other interpretation is something like there is a small probability you will hit your open-ended straight draw (31%). If there are at least two players other than you calling, though, it is always a good idea to call (excepting tournament and all-in considerations). So it depends on what interpretation you have of the word 'small'.

By the first definition of small (vanishing), I can't think of a single argument that was a good idea. By the second, I can think of thousands. So, the generalisation is leaky because of that word 'small'. Instead of relaxing it, just tighten up the 'small' part.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 January 2011 01:46:52PM 2 points [-]

Redefinition not supported by the context.

Comment author: shokwave 12 January 2011 01:53:32PM 0 points [-]

I already noted that Eliezer was not specific enough to support that redefinition. I was offering an alternate course of action for Eliezer to take.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 January 2011 06:49:26AM 1 point [-]

That would certainly be a more reasonable position. (Except, obviously, where the payoffs were commensurably large. That obviously doesn't happen often. Situations like "3 weeks to live, can't afford cryonics are the only kind of exception that spring to mind.")