army1987 comments on Bayesian Adjustment Does Not Defeat Existential Risk Charity - Less Wrong

43 Post author: steven0461 17 March 2013 08:50AM

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

Comments (89)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 17 April 2013 05:13:51PM 0 points [-]

PASCAL'S WAGER IS DEFINED BY LOW PROBABILITIES NOT BY LARGE PAYOFFS

PASCAL'S WAGER IS DEFINED BY LOW PROBABILITIES NOT BY LARGE PAYOFFS

PASCAL'S WAGER IS DEFINED BY LOW PROBABILITIES NOT BY LARGE PAYOFFS

I've tried saying this in small letters a number of times, and once in the main post The Pascal's Wager Fallacy Fallacy, and people apparently just haven't paid attention, so I'm just going to try shouting it over and over every time somebody makes the same mistake over and over.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 April 2013 12:28:25PM 0 points [-]

Are you sure they are wrong about what constitutes Pascal's mugging, rather than about whether the probability of xrisk is low?