= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kawoomba comments on Open Thread April 16 - April 22, 2014 - 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 (190)
Bit of a smorgasbord of a post (or a gish-gallop, if I'm not mincing words). Sorry to say, but much of your reasoning is opaque to me. Possibly because I misunderstand. Infinite priors? Anthropic reasoning applied to 'higher beings', because we emphatize with such a higher being's cogito? You lost me there.
I'd say that the possibility of a non-expected FOOM process would be a counterexample, but then again, I have no idea whether you'd qualify a superintelligence of the uFAI variety as a 'higher being'.
Didn't see that coming.
It may be that you've put a large amount of effort into coming to the conclusions you have, but you really need to put some amount of effort into bridging those inferential gaps.
Gaia+VR
If you're going to make up new meanings for words, you should at least organize the definitions to be consistent with dependencies: dependent definitions after words they are dependent on, and related definitions as close to each other as possible. In your list, there are numerous words that are defined in terms of words whose definitions appear afterwards. Among other problems, this allows for the possibility of circular definitions.
Also, many of the definitions don't make sense. e.g.
"An algorithm that guides reproduction over a population of networks toward a given criteria. This is measured as an error rate."
Syntactically, "this" would refer to "criteria", which doesn't make sense. If it doesn't refer to criteria, then it's not clear what it does refer to.