mccHave you ever noticed how many canonical "paradoxes" just sort of evaporate if you decline to recognize Bayesian inference as a thing that works
Hmm so it looks like you started with some absurd priors and you were able to use them to prove some absurd conclusions. Now you're acting like this is a fundamental challenge to the idea of "rationality" and you've made a wikipedia page. Seems to me like you just selected some absurd priors. At absolute most what you've proven is that game theory kind of sucks
(This might be kind of vague so this is the kind of thing I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging A shocking number of problems of this type that make me immediately respond with "why do you think this is a difficult problem?" seem to wind up mentioning Eliezer Yudkowsky when you look into why people are talking about them.)
INTERNET RATIONALIST: Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a hyperintelligent artificial intelligence–
ME: No
INTERNET RATIONALIST: What
ME: I am declining to imagine the hyperintelligent artificial intelligence.
INTERNET RATIONALIST:
ME: I'm thinking about birds right now
INTERNET RATIONALIST:
ME: Dozens of crows, perched atop great standing stones
Jacob Harris@mcc I reached this point with the whole stupid “nuclear bomb that only disarms if you recite a racial slur” thought experiment a few months back. I decline to be part of imagining that is ever plausible or the basis of a serious argument.
Sarah@harrisj
LOL. What a ridiculous thought experiment!
A) never will happen and B) even if it did happen, it would have no bearing on any situation in which people actually claim the "right" to speak slurs.
Like, yes, I guess in this alternate universe you're hypothesizing, I'd speak a racial slur if it was the magic key to disarm a bomb about to kill millions of people. What on Earth has that got to do with ANYTHING that has or will happen anywhere ever?
@SarahAnneDipity @harrisj The scenario was invented by people who want to argue it's okay to say slurs, so they invented a hypothetical where it's morally necessary to say slurs just so they can win an argument about saying slurs. So actually it's very straightforward, it's just dishonest.