Exhaustive Free Association is a step in a chain of reasoning where the logic goes “It’s not A, it’s not B, it’s not C, it’s not D, and I can’t think of any more things it could be!”
Oh no, I wonder if I ever made that mistake.
Security Mindset
Hmm, no, I think I understand that point pretty well...
They listed out the main ways in which an AI could kill everyone (pandemic, nuclear war, chemical weapons) and decided none of those would be particularly likely to work
Definitely not it, I have a whole rant about it. (Come to think of it, that rant also covers the security-mindset thing.)
They perform an EFA to decide which traits to look for, and then they perform an EFA over different “theories of consciousness” in order to try and calculate the relative welfare ranges of different animals.
I don’t think I ever published any EFAs, so I should be in the clear here.
The Fatima Sun Miracle
Oh, I’m not even religious.
Phew! I was pretty worried there for a moment, but no, looks like I know to avoid that fallacy.
(The post describes a fallacy where you rule out a few specific members of a set using properties specific to those members, and proceed to conclude that you’ve ruled out that entire set, having failed to consider that it may have other members which don’t share those properties. My comment takes specific examples of people falling into this fallacy that happened to be mentioned in the post, rules out that those specific examples apply to me, and proceeds to conclude that I’m invulnerable to this whole fallacy, thus committing this fallacy.
(Unless your comment was intended to communicate “I think your joke sucks”, which, valid.))
Oh no, I wonder if I ever made that mistake.
Hmm, no, I think I understand that point pretty well...
Definitely not it, I have a whole rant about it. (Come to think of it, that rant also covers the security-mindset thing.)
I don’t think I ever published any EFAs, so I should be in the clear here.
Oh, I’m not even religious.
Phew! I was pretty worried there for a moment, but no, looks like I know to avoid that fallacy.
This does feel like a nearby fallacy of denying specific examples, which maybe should have its own post
This comment feels like you want to say something different than what you wrote.
Explanation
(The post describes a fallacy where you rule out a few specific members of a set using properties specific to those members, and proceed to conclude that you’ve ruled out that entire set, having failed to consider that it may have other members which don’t share those properties. My comment takes specific examples of people falling into this fallacy that happened to be mentioned in the post, rules out that those specific examples apply to me, and proceeds to conclude that I’m invulnerable to this whole fallacy, thus committing this fallacy.
(Unless your comment was intended to communicate “I think your joke sucks”, which, valid.))
yep that’s correct