DanielLC comments on Similarity Clusters - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 February 2008 03:34AM

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

Comments (4)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: taryneast 09 December 2010 10:35:25AM 1 point [-]

Also a newbie... but I'd gather that each of the "sign-post" characteristics strongly increase the probability that the subject is a human. So, if you look for "things that are bipedal and featherless" - you have a strong likelihood of finding a human... ie it doesn't necessarily mean that if a thing doesn't have that characteristic, that it isn't human ie A->Human doesn't mean that ~A->~Human though if you find ~A then Human has lowered probability. I reckon you can probably sum across the cluster and as long as it has a good percentage of the signalling characteristics - you'd have a high chance of Human.

As to furries and plucked chickens. I'd assume that a temporary-characteristic shouldn't be taken as a permanent characteristic. eg a plucked chicken is temporarily un-feathered (and not by its own choice either!). Normally (for that chicken) it is feathered... the opposite is the case for furries ;)

Comment author: DanielLC 10 January 2012 05:49:15AM *  1 point [-]

I'd assume that a temporary-characteristic shouldn't be taken as a permanent characteristic.

It was never specified that humans are something that stay human. Once you notice that, you'd start using "was a human" and "will be a human" as criteria. The plucked chicken clearly wasn't a human before, and will most likely go into another obviously non-human state soon, so it doesn't fit well as a human. The homo sapiens with the feathered suit used to be an obvious example, and soon will be again, so it fits well as a human.