I’m going to take the implication of Kaj’s comment and strengthen it: This is quite a bad post, primarily because the statistic cannot make the claims you want to infer, and for a non-EA, they’d likely get it massively wrong.
This is a post that could be much better, but needs much more work in choosing metrics that align with what you want to say.
OK, if you don’t like heritability as a metric of genetic influence that challenges Shard Theory’s relatively Blank Slate assumptions, what other metric of genetic influence would you suggest?
I think that human values/behavior is largely genetic, even if it’s not true for AI. My goal was to focus on the fact that your statistic can’t support the claims you want it to, even if the conclusion is actually true.
In other words, I’m focus on how you got to the conclusion here, not it’s ultimate truth value.
I’m going to take the implication of Kaj’s comment and strengthen it: This is quite a bad post, primarily because the statistic cannot make the claims you want to infer, and for a non-EA, they’d likely get it massively wrong.
This is a post that could be much better, but needs much more work in choosing metrics that align with what you want to say.
OK, if you don’t like heritability as a metric of genetic influence that challenges Shard Theory’s relatively Blank Slate assumptions, what other metric of genetic influence would you suggest?
I don’t have a metric immediately on hand.
I think that human values/behavior is largely genetic, even if it’s not true for AI. My goal was to focus on the fact that your statistic can’t support the claims you want it to, even if the conclusion is actually true.
In other words, I’m focus on how you got to the conclusion here, not it’s ultimate truth value.