Have you ever noticed how many canonical "paradoxes" just sort of evaporate if you decline to recognize Bayesian inference as a thing that works

Hmm so it looks like you started with some absurd priors and you were able to use them to prove some absurd conclusions. Now you're acting like this is a fundamental challenge to the idea of "rationality" and you've made a wikipedia page. Seems to me like you just selected some absurd priors. At absolute most what you've proven is that game theory kind of sucks

(This might be kind of vague so this is the kind of thing I'm talking about: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%2 A shocking number of problems of this type that make me immediately respond with "why do you think this is a difficult problem?" seem to wind up mentioning Eliezer Yudkowsky when you look into why people are talking about them.)

INTERNET RATIONALIST: Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a hyperintelligent artificial intelligence–

ME: No

INTERNET RATIONALIST: What

ME: I am declining to imagine the hyperintelligent artificial intelligence.

INTERNET RATIONALIST:

ME: I'm thinking about birds right now

INTERNET RATIONALIST:

ME: Dozens of crows, perched atop great standing stones

@mcc A lot of the issue is also to do with being deliberately sloppy about 'possible' like, do you mean modality, and if so which one? Or is it some kind of quantification, and if so what are the details? Or is it a simple predicate? - eg doing moral reasoning that treats an imagined 10^80 possible intelligences in cyberheaven as real actual present existing people, which is nonsense.

@mcc They have to selectively move between meanings of 'possible' at different parts of their argument and their deliberate sloppiness (and logically invalid moves) are disguised with a heavy layer of the aesthetic of logic.

Follow

@flaviusb @mcc i'm having visions of one of these dingbats trying their "logical thinking" cosplay act and Mr. Spock walking up and slapping them

@theryusui @flaviusb ok so you say this but the first season of Discovery actually had a subplot where a group of "logic extremists" logicked themselves into being a Vulkan alt-right and started assassinating people.

(and… I guess probably Spock would have slapped them, but he didn't get cast until season 2! So instead Spock's sister had to do it…)

@mcc @theryusui I mean, 'Mr Spock' *was* the canonical example that my logic professors used to use of the aesthetics of logic disguising deliberate sloppiness and logically invalid moves.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Computer Fairies

Computer Fairies is a Mastodon instance that aims to be as queer, friendly and furry as possible. We welcome all kinds of computer fairies!