From: Thomas Buckner (tcbevolver@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Aug 04 2005 - 19:39:33 MDT
--- "D. Alex" <adsl7iie@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > ... You seem to believe that in the absence
> of "specific support" - which
> is
> > apparently something you get to define, if
> none of the historically
> similar
> > situations from dogs to Lord Kelvin count as
> generalizable cases - you
> must
> > assign probability zero. This is flatly
> wrong.
>
> Ah, the inapropriate analogy again.
>
> What chance did the medieval alchemists have of
> transmuting lead into gold?
> Why is the "alchemist" comparison less
> appropriate than "dogs" for AI Boxing
> situation?
>
> > ... ... ... If you read
> > http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/technical.html you
> will see why you should
> never
> > assign probability zero to anything.
>
> What is the probability that a new three digit
> prime number will be found?
Ah, but the probability is zero in both the
alchemy and prime number examples because *that
part of the search space has already been
searched*. Rookie misteak, Alex ;-D
Tom Buckner
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT