= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on The Singularity Institute's Arrogance Problem - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (307)
Informally, let us suppose perceived arrogance in attempting a task is the perceived competence of the individual divided by the perceived difficulty of the task. SIAI is attempting an impossible task, without infinite competence. Thus, there is no way SIAI can be arrogant enough.
I'm pretty sure you flipped the fraction upside-down here. Shouldn't it be perceived difficulty of the task divided by perceived competence? Gifted high-school student who boldly declares that he will develop a Theory of Everything over the course of summer vacation is arrogant (low competence, high difficulty). Top-notch theoretical physicist who boldly declares that he will solve a problem from a high-school math contest is not. So SIAI is actually infinitely arrogant, according to your assumptions.
I'm pretty sure I did too. But the whole explanation seems much less intuitive to me now, so I'll retract rather than correct it.
It seems to me that the "perceived arrogance quotient" used by most people is the following: (status asserted by speaker as perceived by listener)/(status assigned to speaker by listener)
However, I think this is wrong and unfair, and it should instead be: (status asserted by speaker as perceived by speaker)/(status assigned to speaker by listener)
That is, before you call someone arrogant, you should have to put in a little work to determine their intention, and what the world looks like from their point of view.