Sorted by New


Being Half-Rational About Pascal's Wager is Even Worse

EY: I don't multiply tiny probabilities by huge impacts. I also don't get tiny probabilities by putting myself into inescapable reference classes, for this is the sort of reasoning that would screw over planets that actually were in trouble if everyone thought like that.

But isn't the latter exactly what you are doing with Pascal's wager? Underestimating the existence of God's probability so that you may retreat back to 'tiny probability'?

Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page

Luke, while I agree with the premise, I think that the bogie man of machines taking over may be either inevitable or impossible, depending on where you put your assumptions.

In many ways, machines have BEEN smarter and stronger than humans already. Machine AI may make individual or groups of machines formidable, but until they can reason, replicate, and trust or deceive, I'm not sure they have much of a chance.

Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page

No doubt evolution is a simplified rules set, but in empirical tests, as well as in historical interpretation of data, it has many failings which, as Luke has pointed out for certain creationists, is something that evolutionary believers shy away from, hiding in self-deception in order to keep their beliefs safe.

But this is not a post about creation/evolution - my point was that his use of creationists was a poor choice because (a) creationism is believed by a majority of Americans, and so will turn them off from his main point, and (b) the idea that the idea is settled scientifically is dubious, since origins science is more interpretation than demonstrable fact, and both sides of that debate have strong ideological reasons to believe and scientific reasons to doubt that they ignore.