No. You’re entitled to arguments, but not (that particular) proof (blog post #898).
You would invoke this on someone asking for only specific evidence for your theory. It doesn’t make sense to invoke it against someone asking for ANY evidence.
You would invoke this on someone asking for only specific evidence for your theory. It doesn’t make sense to invoke it against someone asking for ANY evidence.
You have to take the outside view here. When an outsider asks if you have evidence that AI will go FOOM then they are not talking about arguments because convincing arguments are not enough in the opinion of a lot of people. That doesn’t imply that it is wrong to act on arguments but that you are so far detached from the reality of how people think that you don’t even get how ridiculous it sounds to an outsider that has not read the sequences. Which your comment and the 11 upvotes it got obviously show.
The way outsiders see it is that a lot of things can sound very convincing and yet be completely wrong and that only empirical evidence or mathematical proofs can corroborate extraordinary predictions like those made by SI.
The wrong way to approach those people is with snide remarks about their lack of rationality.
Your reply makes me think that you interpreted the ‘you’ in “You would invoke …” as you—XiXiDu, so it sounded like Incorrect was accusing you of being hypocritical. I think they might have just meant ‘one’, though, which would make their reply less of a snide remark and more of an (attempted) helpful correction.
I’m guessing you didn’t read it that way because Incorrect was attempting to correct the way Leverage Researcher was using that argument, but you didn’t identify with the Leverage Researcher character in your dialogue. So when Incorrect posted that as a reply to you, you thought they were saying that you yourself are just as bad as your character. I’m guessing about what’s going on in two different people’s brains though, so I could easily be wrong.
You would invoke this on someone asking for only specific evidence for your theory. It doesn’t make sense to invoke it against someone asking for ANY evidence.
And, in particular, you would invoke it when the proof demanded is proof that should not exist even given that the theory is correct.
You would invoke this on someone asking for only specific evidence for your theory. It doesn’t make sense to invoke it against someone asking for ANY evidence.
You have to take the outside view here. When an outsider asks if you have evidence that AI will go FOOM then they are not talking about arguments because convincing arguments are not enough in the opinion of a lot of people. That doesn’t imply that it is wrong to act on arguments but that you are so far detached from the reality of how people think that you don’t even get how ridiculous it sounds to an outsider that has not read the sequences. Which your comment and the 11 upvotes it got obviously show.
The way outsiders see it is that a lot of things can sound very convincing and yet be completely wrong and that only empirical evidence or mathematical proofs can corroborate extraordinary predictions like those made by SI.
The wrong way to approach those people is with snide remarks about their lack of rationality.
Your reply makes me think that you interpreted the ‘you’ in “You would invoke …” as you—XiXiDu, so it sounded like Incorrect was accusing you of being hypocritical. I think they might have just meant ‘one’, though, which would make their reply less of a snide remark and more of an (attempted) helpful correction.
I’m guessing you didn’t read it that way because Incorrect was attempting to correct the way Leverage Researcher was using that argument, but you didn’t identify with the Leverage Researcher character in your dialogue. So when Incorrect posted that as a reply to you, you thought they were saying that you yourself are just as bad as your character. I’m guessing about what’s going on in two different people’s brains though, so I could easily be wrong.
And, in particular, you would invoke it when the proof demanded is proof that should not exist even given that the theory is correct.