= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gerryblog comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 114 + chapter 115 - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (423)
I assume he means: we are not in a position to have any confidence that a particular proposed magical solution is actually a credible one, at least from what we know that's internal to the story. (External things like what's been most clearly foreshadowed might give good reason for confidence.)
That's exactly what I mean. We don't know enough about magic to say what Harry or Voldemort's capabilities are -- the whole thing is a black box. It's not a satisfying answer to the puzzle (for me) and not much of a testimony to "rationality" as a way of thinking at all -- as presented this is about knowing genre conventions, not about superior or inferior thinking. All of the AI Box solutions I saw were much more pro-"rationality" by my lights.