= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Furcas comments on [POLL] AI-FOOM Debate in Sequence Reruns? - 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 (16)
I'd say no, don't re-post the debate at all. First, it teaches nothing about rationality. Second, it was... kind of bad.
Yes it does. In fact memory suggests part of the problem with Eliezer's posts were that he was stuck explaining foundational concepts of how to reason rather than shooting out carefully crafted conclusions.
Looking at the list of posts, you're right, there is some stuff about rationality, like Is that your true rejection? It just has very little to do with the AI-foom debate.
So I'll amend my previous post: Don't post any of the actual debate, but extract the posts from the sequence that are about rationality.
What do people think of this idea? I'm personally interested in reading all of the debate, and I think I will, no matter what I wind up posting, so nobody else needs to feel lonely if they want to see all of it.
Concur. Hanson didn't apply his knowledge of calculus, or felt it was unjustified to do so because he believes too strongly in empirical data and not strongly enough in analytical arguments. Yudkowsky repeated himself over and over and talked about side issues that weren't the cause of Hanson's rejection.
I think "analytical argument" is the phrase I was looking for.
In Brunner's The Sheep Look Up (a pollution dystopia), someone figures out that there isn't enough clean land to produce the amount of clean food they're selling. At that point, you don't have to check the details of their production methods (assuming that hydroponics aren't feasible), though you still might want to.
Are there comparable terms for other sorts of arguments?