Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Open thread, January 25- February 1 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (316)
Every now and then I like to review my old writings so I can cringe at all the wrong things I wrote, and say "oops" for each of them. Here we go...
That's probably wrong. IIRC, previous eras' low life expectancy was mostly due to high child mortality.
This sentence is defensible for certain definitions of "significant," but I think it was a mistake to include this sentence (and the following quotes from Hutter and Schmidhuber) in the paper. AIXI and Godel machines probably aren't particularly important pieces of progress to AGI worth calling out like that. I added those paragraphs to section 2.4. not long before the submission deadline, and regretted it a couple months later.
No, that's a misreading of the study.
Eh, not really.
Silly. Donor-advised funds basically always fund as the donor wishes.
Smart move not only to review but post the results. Shows humbleness and at the same time prevents being called on it later.
This is an approach I'd like to see more often. Maybe you should add it to the http://lesswrong.com/lw/h7d/grad_student_advice_repository/ or some such.