= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bayeslisk comments on Probability and radical uncertainty - 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 (71)
The evidence that I didn't select it at random was my saying “I find this one particularly interesting.”
I also claimed that "I'm probably not that evil." Of course, I might be lying about that! Still, that's a fact that ought to go into your Bayesian evaluation, no?
"Interesting" tends to mean "whatever it would be, it does that more" in the context of possibly psuedo-Faustian bargains and signals of probable deceit. From what I know, I do not start with reason to trust you, and the evidence found in the OP suggests that I should update the probability that you are concealing information updating on which would lead me not to use the black box to "much higher".
Oh, goodness, interesting, you do think I'm evil!
I'm not sure whether to be flattered or upset or what. It's kinda cool, anyway!
I think that avatar-of-you-in-this-presented-scenario does not remotely have avatar-of-me-in-this-scenario's best interests at heart, yes.