= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Grognor comments on Irrationality Game II - 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 (380)
Upvoted in furious, happy disagreement, because I was going to post this very thing, with a confidence level of 20%, but then I reasoned out that this was unbelievably stupid and the probability of infinite Bayesian evidence being possible should be the same as probabilities for other things we have very strong reason to believe are simply impossible: 1 - epsilon.
I'm pretty sure the probability of almost certainly impossible things being possible is lower than 1-epsilon. Except for very large values of epsilon.
Indeed, for values of epsilon approaching one.
I suppose if I wanted to maximize karma I should have stated a confidence level of 0%.
You're supposed to post things you actually believe, you know! What are you, a spirit-of-the-game violator?
Gaining utility from karma, illegitemate or fraudulent sources regardless, is an ongoing problem which never ceases to amuse me. Let the humans have their fun!
I do believe the 100% thing, though. It's just that in this case, karma is not maximized where spirit-of-the-game is maximized, and I thought I'd point that out.