Discredited comments on Why CFAR? - Less Wrong

71 Post author: AnnaSalamon 28 December 2013 11:25PM

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

Comments (117)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 December 2013 12:50:39AM 11 points [-]

I would phrase this more along the lines of "If nothing MIRI does works, or for that matter if everything works but it's still not enough, CFAR tries to get a fully generic bonus on paths unseen in advance."

Comment author: Discredited 01 January 2014 03:26:52AM 2 points [-]

Do you choose that rephrasing because you don't see how MIRI's work could be harmful or because there is nothing CFAR can do in that case?

Comment author: RobbBB 02 January 2014 03:31:37AM *  3 points [-]

Switch out 'harmful' for 'aiming at the wrong goals', since that's the possibility cipher raised and Eliezer didn't. (Those goals might make MIRI useless; harmful isn't the only possibility.)

I'd guess that Eliezer's rephrasing reflects (1) his vagueness about the means by which CFAR would act as game-changer, and (2) his being much more worried that MIRI lacks the ingenuity and intellectual firepower to achieve its goals than worried that MIRI's deepest values and concerns are misplaced. CFAR might also help in some low-probability scenarios, but it's the likelier scenarios that make Eliezer a CFAR supporter.