4 ms·
I always find this Yudkowsky-esque conceit somewhat lacking. It's not that one shouldn't examine the motivations of your various... motivations. But it just s
by Helianthus 15y ago
I always find this Yudkowsky-esque conceit somewhat lacking. It's not that one shouldn't examine the motivations of your various... motivations.
But it just seems so close to depersonalization, as witnessed by your interesting pluralization mismatch ('"you" only has'). That supposedly hostile methodology is actually very sensible once you understand it.
I suppose that's what comes from assuming that the hostile hardware is merely a statistical assertion of the Bayesian variety.
And apparently it is functional for some people, so... I suppose that's merit enough.
- russellallen 15y agoBugger, apologies for iPad induced downvote.
- Helianthus 15y agoI am personally offended at the loss of my karma and will be downvoting you in reveng--DAMMIT I MISSED. you win this round.
- nazgulnarsil 15y ago"personalization" to me implies some sort of narrative that strings together your behaviors into a supposedly coherent personality. In this respect depersonalization is good.
- Helianthus 15y agoThat's hilarious. You guys (assuming you're arguing the lesswrong perspective) are an intellectual house of cards, you know. Eliezer can't even keep his house in order.
- nazgulnarsil 15y agoQuinean naturalism + cognitive science is a house of cards. Good to know. Do you have any other useful information?
- Helianthus 15y agoAttacks are directed at the weakest point, not the strongest.
- nazgulnarsil 15y agodo you have a substantive critique to link to or should I take it on faith that such a thing exists?