If anyone knows of more links to intelligent disagreement with ideas prevailing on Less Wrong...
Well, people like user:wedrifid disagree but I don’t think that the following posts are fallacious (or at least I haven’t heard counterarguments that would render those posts obsolete):
(I am currently writing up a post for my personal blog where I list all requirements that need to be true in conjunction for SIAI to be the best choice when it comes to charitable giving.)
(I am currently writing up a post for my personal blog where I list all requirements that need to be true in conjunction for SIAI to be the best choice when it comes to charitable giving.)
Be careful, it’s very common for people to gerrymander such probability estimates by unjustifiably assuming complete independence or complete dependence of certain terms. (This is true even if the “probability estimate” is only implicit in the qualitative structure of the argument.) If people think that’s what you’re doing then they’re likely to disregard your conclusions even if the conclusions could have been supported by a weaker argument.
Well, people like user:wedrifid disagree but I don’t think that the following posts are fallacious
I can confirm this. Or at least the second of the links is fallacious. The first was merely overwhelmingly weak (and so only fallacious to the extent that strong conclusions were declared.)
Well, people like user:wedrifid disagree but I don’t think that the following posts are fallacious (or at least I haven’t heard counterarguments that would render those posts obsolete):
Is an Intelligence Explosion a Disjunctive or Conjunctive Event?
Why an Intelligence Explosion might be a Low-Priority Global Risk
(I am currently writing up a post for my personal blog where I list all requirements that need to be true in conjunction for SIAI to be the best choice when it comes to charitable giving.)
Be careful, it’s very common for people to gerrymander such probability estimates by unjustifiably assuming complete independence or complete dependence of certain terms. (This is true even if the “probability estimate” is only implicit in the qualitative structure of the argument.) If people think that’s what you’re doing then they’re likely to disregard your conclusions even if the conclusions could have been supported by a weaker argument.
I’ve just pointed out something very similar.
I can confirm this. Or at least the second of the links is fallacious. The first was merely overwhelmingly weak (and so only fallacious to the extent that strong conclusions were declared.)
XiXiDu has also replied with Risks from AI and Charitable Giving.