I actually thought of this in the sense of statements being partially true: We know godels incompleteness theorem (most likely you know it better than I do). I'm pretty sure it's provable that BB(10^10) does not have a lower bound. However, if you simulate minds/civilizations/AI/something, and ask them to bet on mathematical theorems (at first with less resources so they don't just solve it), and then ask them whether they think a certain unprovable theorem is true and let them bet on it, you might somehow know how true an unprovable statement is? I realize this comment is poorly written but I hope you understand my intuition.
I still think this should not be assumed to be true and used as an argument. If there is a reason that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, use the reason as an argument instead.
If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores
If we're popping bubbles, I see no reason to keep high school scores, and maybe even SAT. There is no reason for your history grade to affect your acceptance to programming-related work, and there is definitely no reason for accepting people who were liked most by their history teacher. Places of work should test applicants on their own.
"Why did you give our enemies the nuclear codes*? Now our country is going up is flames?"
"Well, the truth is that the code is 50285193, and the code destroyed our country, and that which can be destroyed by the truth should be"
*I don't know how nuclear codes actually work. I'm giving a counterargument to "that which can be destroyed by the truth should be"
As I see the world, all current meaningful terminal goals are three-dimensional, and saving a life that will not affect the world has 0 meaning against the good in preventing x and s risks (maybe there is a risk I don't know of)
So saving an American child has more value than saving an african child, and saving a north korean child has negative value.
If I save two kids from malaria, am I entitled to murder someone?
So no, not close to the same scale as a murderer. When you say murderer, the emotional meaning comes to mind, and we cannot possibly not hate murderers as a civilization. I think most readers will get the point by so I will stop writing
[insert supposedly famous person that may or may not actually be famous here] said [insert something along the lines of "AI is dangerous how didn't I notice until now"] sounds VERY cherry-picking
This makes me think that Santa Claus is a good model of religion. In some areas, it is really accurate (I believed that Santa probably existed but is now long dead). Except, for some reason, children stop believing in Santa Claus. Perhaps it is because a child is never "punished" for disbelieving in Santa (in the sense that a tsk to a child about to commit a religious sin a punishment). It might be because of the way parents "look down" at children believing in Santa. If someone thinks they know why, please share.
Please make it clear you are talking about weight. When I finished, I thought "what about the part where he LOSES money"