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.

JoshuaZ comments on Breakdown of existential risks - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 23 November 2012 02:12PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (21)
Tags: anders sandberg xrisk existential risk risks analysis

Comments (21)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 November 2012 05:38:55PM 5 points [-]

Can you expand on what dynamical laws and deterministic dynamics mean? Also, how is one checking if there is a research community? My understanding is that a fair number of geologists study Yellowstone for example but supervolcanoes have a "no" next to them. Also, what does "obsolete" mean in the third column?

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 23 November 2012 07:57:50PM 0 points [-]

You may be correct for super-volcanoes; I'm not sure about that.

Obsolete probably means that all data we have on past global computer failures is already out of date as far as predicting future ones is concerned.

Comment author: prase 24 November 2012 01:26:55AM 2 points [-]

And deterministic dynamics?

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 26 November 2012 10:30:07AM 0 points [-]

Do they obey known deterministic laws?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit