Good catch, looks like that's from this revision, which looks like it was copied over from Arbital - some LaTeX didn't make it through. I'll see if it's trivial to fix.
I know roughly what the orthogonality thesis is. But if I'd only read the wiki page, it wouldn't make sense to me. – »Well, we don't share the opinion of some people that the goals of increasingly intelligent agents converge. So we put up a thesis which claims that intelligence and goals vary freely. Suppose there's one goal system that fulfils Armstrong's requirements. This would refute the orthogonality thesis, even if most intelligences converged on one or two other goal systems.« I don't mean to say that the orthogonality thesis itself doesn't make sense. I mean that the wiki page doesn't provide enough information to enable people to understand that it makes sense.
Instead of repairing the above shortcomings, I propose referring people to the corresponding Arbital page. --Rmoehn (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2016 (AEST)
A link appears to have broken, does anyone know what “null” was supposed to link to in “policy null ” (note the extra spaces around “null”
Good catch, looks like that's from this revision, which looks like it was copied over from Arbital - some LaTeX didn't make it through. I'll see if it's trivial to fix.
Should be fixed now.
From the old discussion page:
Talk:Orthogonality thesis
Quality Concerns
Instead of repairing the above shortcomings, I propose referring people to the corresponding Arbital page. --Rmoehn (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2016 (AEST)
The corresponding arbital page is now (apparently) dead.
The page isn't dead, Arbital pages just don't load sometimes (or take 15+ seconds).