= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
drethelin comments on I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!) - 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 (163)
Why treat keeping a bear in the house as an alternative to a garbage disposal? Build a garbage disposal and then chain it up!
suppose you're not convinced keeping a bear in the house to eat food waste is a bad idea? you might go ahead and try it, and then you'd be really glad you kept it chained up!
It seems to me that my examples are more like these:
Why not drive safely and wear a seatbelt? Why not prove your hash-table code correct and write some unit tests? Why not simulate your amplifier circuit and build one and see what it actually does?
Some people might think it's OK to build a nuclear power station or a spacecraft without formal correctness proofs for all the software in it, on the grounds that formal correctness proofs of large complicated systems are almost impossible to make and difficult to trust. If there are things those people can do to improve their conventional not-mathematically-rigorous testing, it might be worth recommending that they do them.
But by all means feel free to choose mockery and ridicule over reasoned debate, if that's what you prefer.
the entire POINT of the mockery is that you are treating this as a technical issue that's worth solving rather than a tangent path that is both dangerous and foolish. I don't really care how much you've thought about what material to make the chains out of and which feeding schedule will keep the bear most docile. Those are questions that, sure, you CAN have reasoned debate about, but shouldn't.
You shouldn't talk about whether it's possible because it's not possible? That's a very rational argument. How exactly did you arrive at that prior?