The qualification with “perhaps” makes it tautological and therefore silly. (You may notice that my comment was also tautological).
The slight strawman with “insisting on theoretically perfect” is, well, I’ll call it silly. As Eliezer replied, the goal is more like theoretically not doomed.
And last, the typo in “SI is perhaps being too cautious by insisting on theoretically perfect SI” makes it funny.
The article did mention that even with a “perfect” theory , there may be mistakes in the proof or the implementation may go wrong. I don’t remember him saying so as clearly in earlier writings as he did in this comment, so it’s good we raised the issue.
This is perhaps a silly statement.
Why do you think it is “silly”?
The qualification with “perhaps” makes it tautological and therefore silly. (You may notice that my comment was also tautological).
The slight strawman with “insisting on theoretically perfect” is, well, I’ll call it silly. As Eliezer replied, the goal is more like theoretically not doomed.
And last, the typo in “SI is perhaps being too cautious by insisting on theoretically perfect SI” makes it funny.
Thanks, at least I corrected the typo.
The article did mention that even with a “perfect” theory , there may be mistakes in the proof or the implementation may go wrong. I don’t remember him saying so as clearly in earlier writings as he did in this comment, so it’s good we raised the issue.