TFD

Disjunctive arguments can be a reverse multiple-stage fallacy

Assume we want to know the probability that two events co-occur (i.e. of their conjunction). If the two events are independent, the probability of the co-occurrence is the product of the probabilities of the individual events, P(A and B) = P(A) * P(B). In order to estimate the probability of some event, one method would be to decompose that event into independent sub-events and use this method to estimate the probability. For example, if the target event E = A and B and C, then we can estimate P(E) as P(A and B and C) = P(A) * P(B) * P(C). Suppose we want to make an event seem unlikely. If we use the above method but slightly under-estimated the sub-event probabilities and use a large number of sub-events, then the resulting final probability will inevitably be very small. Because people tend to find moderate-range probabilities reasonable, this would be a superficially compelling argument even if it results in a massive under-estimation of the final probability. This has been called the multiple-stage fallacy. Assume we want to know the probability that either of two events occurs (i.e. of their disjunction). If the two events are mutually exclusive, the probability of the disjunction is the sum of the probabilities of the individual events, P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B). In order to estimate the probability of some event, one method would be to decompose that event into mutually exclusive sub-events and use this method to estimate the probability. For example, if the target event E = A or B or C, then we would estimate P(E) as P(A or B or C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C). Suppose we want to make an event seem likely. If we use the above method but slightly over-estimated the sub-event probabilities and use a large number of sub-events, then the resulting final probability will inevitably be very large. Because people tend to find moderate-range probabilities reasonable, this would be a superficially compelling argument even if it results in a massive over-estimation of the

41Jan 31

TFD

Message

246

Does the First Amendment protect Anthropic from Hegseth?

Anthropic is embroiled in a standoff with Secretary Hegseth over how the company's AI offerings may be used in military applications: > For months, [Anthropic CEO Dario] Amodei has insisted that using AI for domestic mass surveillance and AI-controlled weapons are ethical lines the company will not cross, calling such...

Feb 2510

We are all legal realists now

The recent Supreme Court ruling in the tariffs case is a solid win for conservative proponents of the court. Having applied the major questions doctrine to ruled against the Trump administration, this case is the perfect counterpoint to the persistent left-wing critique that the conservative justices twist originalist judicial philosophy...

Feb 24-12

Ponzi schemes as a demonstration of out-of-distribution generalization

A Ponzi scheme is fraud where the fraudster induces investors to give the fraudster money with promises of profits, and then uses money from later investors to pay out earlier investors. This pattern, as well as the phrase "Ponzi scheme" have become ubiquitously associated with fraud and grift in modern...

Feb 219

Who does a right to compute actually protect?

Several states appear to be considering so-called "right to compute" laws. The rhetoric around these laws attempts to draw a comparison with other rights such as the right of free speech and property rights. For example, Montana's SB212 has this to say: > Government actions that restrict the ability to...

Feb 425

Disjunctive arguments can be a reverse multiple-stage fallacy

Jan 3141

My simple argument for AI policy action

Many arguments over the risks of advanced AI systems are long, complex, and invoke esoteric or contested concepts and ideas. I believe policy action to address the potential risks from AI is desirable and should be a priority for policymakers. This isn't a view that everyone shares, nor is this...

Jan 283

Ex-OpenAI employee amici leave to file denied in Musk v OpenAI case?

Several ex-employees of OpenAI filed an amicus brief in the Musk v OpenAI[1] case. This proposed brief argues that OpenAI should not be allowed to move from its existing nonprofit structure to a for-profit structure. We now have an order on the motions to dismiss in the case. This order...

May 2, 20254

Load More (7/10)

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

TFD

TFD

TFD

Disjunctive arguments can be a reverse multiple-stage fallacy

Don't accuse your interlocutor of being insufficiently truth-seeking

Who does a right to compute actually protect?

Does the First Amendment protect Anthropic from Hegseth?

TFD

Does the First Amendment protect Anthropic from Hegseth?

We are all legal realists now

Ponzi schemes as a demonstration of out-of-distribution generalization

Who does a right to compute actually protect?

Disjunctive arguments can be a reverse multiple-stage fallacy

My simple argument for AI policy action

Ex-OpenAI employee amici leave to file denied in Musk v OpenAI case?

Disjunctive arguments can be a reverse multiple-stage fallacy

Don't accuse your interlocutor of being insufficiently truth-seeking

Who does a right to compute actually protect?

Does the First Amendment protect Anthropic from Hegseth?

Does the First Amendment protect Anthropic from Hegseth?

We are all legal realists now

Ponzi schemes as a demonstration of out-of-distribution generalization

Who does a right to compute actually protect?

Disjunctive arguments can be a reverse multiple-stage fallacy

My simple argument for AI policy action

Ex-OpenAI employee amici leave to file denied in Musk v OpenAI case?