= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nigerweiss comments on Who thinks quantum computing will be necessary for AI? - 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 (101)
Evidence?
EDIT: Sigh. Post has changed contents to something reasonable. Ignore and move on.
Reply edit: I don't have a copy of your original comment handy, so I can't accurately comment on what I was thinking when I read it. However, I don't recall it striking me as a joke, or even an exceptionally dumb thing for someone on the internet to profess belief in.
Wrong reference class, "someone on the internet", much too broad. Just as your comment shouldn't usefully be called an exceptionally smart thing for a mammal to say, we should refer to the most applicable reference class -- "someone on LW" -- which screens for most simple "haha, that guy is clearly dumb, damn I'm so smart figuring that out" gotcha moments. Shift gears.
The original comment was close to "we'll need quantum and/xor quarks to explain qualia (qualai?)." Not exactly subtle with the "xor" ...
I'd really want to know this (no need to pay the karma penalty, just PM or edit your comment): Did you really take the comment at face value? This was the intent of the comment pre-edit.
It may be interesting if that's a cultural boundaries thing for humor, or if LW'ers just keep an unusually open mind and are ready to accept others to hold outlandish positions.