You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AlephNeil comments on What is/are the definition(s) of "Should"? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Will_Sawin 01 June 2011 05:55PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (46)

Comments (46)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AlephNeil 01 June 2011 08:05:45PM 2 points [-]

Nitpick 1:

It seems likely to be the optimal way to build an AI that has to communicate with other AIs.

This seems a very contentious claim. For instance, to store the relative heights of people, wouldn't it make more sense to have the virtual equivalent of a ruler with markings on it rather than the virtual equivalent of a table of sentences of the form "X is taller than Y"?

I think the best approach here is just to explicitly declare it as an assumption: 'for argument's sake' your robot uses this method. End of story.

Nitpick 2:

Because of General Relativity, when applied to the real world, it is, in fact, wrong.

This is false. General Relativity doesn't contradict the fact that space is "locally Euclidean".

Comment author: Will_Sawin 01 June 2011 08:21:21PM 0 points [-]

This is false. General Relativity doesn't contradict the fact that space is "locally Euclidean".

Should I use a different postulate?

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 01 June 2011 10:44:23PM 2 points [-]

Should I use a different postulate?

Yes: the parallel postulate.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit