3 ms·
He's stated elsewhere he thinks the chances of this scenario are only ~30% IIRC
by arthurjj 10y ago
He's stated elsewhere he thinks the chances of this scenario are only ~30% IIRC
- davidgerard 10y agoBased on what, though? The hazard of dealing with Bayesian epistemologists is that they will confidently state percentages that they literally made up.
- Houshalter 10y agoBased on his own personal belief. Probabilities are a very useful way to precisely state the certainty of beliefs. It means that if you offered him betting odds that it would happen, of less than 1:2, he would take it. And he would bet against it at odds higher than 1:2. Of course betting on the far future is impractical, because money might not be worth anything if it does happen, but in principle that's how these numbers can be interpreted.
- davidgerard 10y agoYes, I know where Bayesian epistemologists get their numbers. The danger is that they then announce these numbers as if they have any real-world basis, and that they are taken as making a claim about objective reality. There's no evidence I know that pulling a number out of your backside and running it through Bayes' theorem produces better results than just pulling the number out directly and running with it. Indeed, the real-world track record of LessWrong/MIRI (to bring this back to topical relevance) strongly suggests it's less effective.
- Houshalter 10y agoHe didn't claim it had "real world basis" or "run it through Bayes' theorem". He just said he expects about a 30% chance he is right.
- gohrt 10y agoIs that different from any other epistemologists?