= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
William_Quixote comments on Rationality Quotes July 2014 - 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 (195)
Scott Aaronson.
EDIT: to clarify, if you can predict what a famous personality is going to say on a given topic well enough to replace it with a chatbot, listening to said personality on that topic no longer has much value.
Physicists's responses to a given claim of discovering FTL signaling are one of the most predictable phenomena I can think of—even the comets and the tides throw more curveballs. One could easily replace them with a chatbot.
Well, yeah. If I were a physicist, I might find it annoying to give the same press interview for every individual incorrect claim of FTL signaling. It might be nice if somebody replaced me with a chatbot and let me go back to doing physics.
Predictable isn't necessarily the same as wrong. I suppose, here, one must distinguish between listening as "seeking out the person's opinion" and listening as "assigning credence to that opinion". I can listen-1 to crackpots, but I don't listen-2 to them. I listen-2 to my role models, even when I don't need to listen-1 to them (thanks to my ability to model their response).
Do you often read physicist's response to claims of FTL signalling? It seems to me like there is not much value in reading these, per the quote.