@St_Rev @A_P_Mason @asilentsky nice summary of singularitarianism as religion.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness @A_P_Mason @asilentsky For what it's worth, Yudkowsky has disclaimed ∞×ε type arguments in his exchanges with Holden Karnofsky.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@Meaningness @A_P_Mason @asilentsky Maybe one can argue singularitarianism requires ∞×ε arguments, but it's not the line that's being taken.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@Meaningness @A_P_Mason @asilentsky Rather, it's supposed to be U×P with U a huge number and P maybe smallish but not super small.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies Hmm, not sure it was clear I was using “∞” as shorthand for “very large, unspecified, finite number.”1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@MemberOfSpecies If that *was* clear, I’m not sure how what I attributed to singularitarianism differs from the actual argument.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness The difference is in the ε, which I take to refer only to probabilities so small they make max-EU heuristics problematic.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@Meaningness "It's a really good idea for humanity to spend $10M to avert 0.1% of a 50% extinction risk" isn't Pascal's Wager or religion.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@Meaningness As I see it, the arguments generally made are, very roughly and informally, in that ballpark.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@Meaningness Whereas calling them ∞×ε suggests to me something like "even if the probability is one in a billion, the payoff justifies it"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@MemberOfSpecies OK, yeah, if people have said MIRI is justifiable only on Pascal’s Wager basis, I disagree with them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.