From: Russell Wallace (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 19:13:26 MDT
On 7/25/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hold on a second. CEV is not a subjunctive planetkill until I say, "I think
> CEV is solid enough that we could go ahead with it if I just had the AI theory
> and the funding". I never said that.
Okay, if and when you do say that it'll become your third subjunctive
planet kill (assuming Whimpers and Shrieks count as well as Bangs).
Someone please find a deadly flaw in Domain Protection so I can start
catching up :)
> With that stipulated, I don't see how you could possibly do better than
> getting from point A to point Z on FAI theory by going through, and then
> rejecting, a set of inadequate theories that you knew to be inadequate.
But if you're just putting it forward as a topic for discussion and
not proposing to actually go ahead and implement it, then I'm glad to
> Though we quite disagree on what the problems with CEV are.
*nods* As I said, my big problem is with the C part, not the EV part;
if you're moving away from the Collective idea, well and good; I'll
wait until the revised version is nailed down more solidly before
having another go at it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT