Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 29 April 2016 08:05:08PM 0 points [-]

Laughs I added the "internal inconsistency" part to the Wikipedia article ages ago. (2011, specifically)

I see that it has citations now; I didn't bother, as I was just annoyed with people who kept arguing against advancing technology and wanted to throw a thumbtack in one of their gears.

It's been weighed down with some unnecessary language (as some kind of compromise over an edit war, I assume) in addition to some citations, but the basic structure looks like it's still intact. The unnecessary language argues that the precautionary principle -isn't- logically inconsistent, by implying that the risks of the precautionary principle are both proximally known and calculable, but it takes half a brain cell to notice that the implication isn't supported or supportable.

I find the citation to State of Fear particularly amusing; it suggests the edit wars were a proxy battle from the climate change edit wars.

Comment author: time3 09 June 2016 04:02:56AM 0 points [-]

Wikipedia isn't about consistency, in fact their rules ban both original research and primary sources. It's about whatever can be found in secondary sources, which of course tend to be inconsistent.

Comment author: time3 08 June 2016 12:56:55AM 0 points [-]

The AI might eventually conclude that the "JFK" in it's prior didn't refer to President John F. Kennedy but to some other guy with the initials JFK.

More interestingly, if the prior was specified as "The president isn't assassinated on November 22, 1963" it might conclude that John F Kennedy wasn't the president, it might look at the election of 1960, notice that it was one of the closest in American history and that there was some funny business with the election in Chicago and Texas, and thus conclude that the legitimate president was Richard Nixon who in fact wasn't assassinated on November 22, 1963.

From here it could go in any number of directions, e.g., conclude that since the president Kennedy was illegitimate then all the laws he signed as president were illegitimate and that it should therefore set about preventing them from being enforced. Or more generally develop a somewhat eccentric theory of what it means to be a legitimate elected official and act accordingly.

Note, that in the above scenario the AI doesn't have any "material" beliefs different from not having the not-assassinated prior but is still likely to act differently.

Comment author: time3 06 June 2016 11:46:07PM 1 point [-]

I always interpreted the quote as a witty way to tell someone to shut up.