This is a linkpost for http://curi.us/2065-open-letter-to-machine-intelligence-research-institute
You say that seemingly in ignorance that what I said contradicts Less Wrong.
First, you are showing your own ignorance of the fact that not everyone is a cult member like yourself. I have a bet with Eliezer Yudkowsky against one of his main positions and I stand to win $1,000 if I am right and he is mistaken.
Second, "contradicts Less Wrong" does not make sense because Less Wrong is not a person or a position or a set of positions that might be contradicted. It is a website where people talk to each other.
One of the things I said was Taking Children Seriously is important for AGI. Is this one of the truths you refer to?
No. Among other things, I meant that I agreed that AIs will have a stage of "growing up," and that this will be very important for what they end up doing. Taking Children Seriously, on the other hand, is an extremist ideology.
You still can't even state the position correctly.
Since I have nothing to learn from you, I do not care whether I express your position the way you would express it. I meant the same thing. Induction is quite possible, and we do it all the time.
I meant the same thing. Induction is quite possible, and we do it all the time.
What is the thinking process you are using to judge the epistemology of induction? Does that process involve induction? If you are doing induction all the time then you are using induction to judge the epistemology of induction. How is that supposed to work? And if not, judging the special case of the epistemology of induction is an exception. It is an example of thinking without induction. Why is this special case an exception?
Critical Rationalism does not have this problem. The epistemology of Critical Rationalism can be judged entirely within the framework of Critical Rationalism.