One way the error 4 matters, besides what I said preemptively, is that it means none of the cites in the paper can be trusted without checking them.
FWIW I generally take this to be the case; unless I have strong prior evidence that someone’s citations are consistently to a high standard, I don’t assume their citations can be easily trusted, at least not for important things.
I don’t think the preemptive stuff you said is too important because I think people make mistakes all the time and I was more interested in the fundamental arguments outlined and evaluating them for myself.
FWIW I generally take this to be the case; unless I have strong prior evidence that someone’s citations are consistently to a high standard, I don’t assume their citations can be easily trusted, at least not for important things.
Thank you for following the game rules. You’re the only person out of four who did that.
BTW, I think that 25% rule-following rate is important evidence about the world, and rates much lower than 100% would be repeatable for many types of simple, clear rules that people voluntarily opt into. It’s a major concern for my debate policy proposals: you can put conditions on debates such as that people follow certain methodology, including regarding how to stop debating, and people can agree to those conditions … and then just break their word later (which has happened to me before).
Thanks!
I’m choosing not to debate.
If I’m reading your rules correctly, I’m still allowed to state if I consider some errors unimportant, with or without giving reasons.
I think error 4 is unimportant because the point is about bottlenecks and it stands without the last two words as you said.
If you’ve written anything against the singularity hypothesis, I would be curious to read it.
To be clear, you’re welcome to say whatever extra stuff you want.
Here is something https://curi.us/2478-super-fast-super-ais
One way the error 4 matters, besides what I said preemptively, is that it means none of the cites in the paper can be trusted without checking them.
FWIW I generally take this to be the case; unless I have strong prior evidence that someone’s citations are consistently to a high standard, I don’t assume their citations can be easily trusted, at least not for important things.
I don’t think the preemptive stuff you said is too important because I think people make mistakes all the time and I was more interested in the fundamental arguments outlined and evaluating them for myself.
Awesome. I think most people do not do that.
Thank you for following the game rules. You’re the only person out of four who did that.
BTW, I think that 25% rule-following rate is important evidence about the world, and rates much lower than 100% would be repeatable for many types of simple, clear rules that people voluntarily opt into. It’s a major concern for my debate policy proposals: you can put conditions on debates such as that people follow certain methodology, including regarding how to stop debating, and people can agree to those conditions … and then just break their word later (which has happened to me before).