From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 07:04:54 MDT
Robin Hanson wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>
>> > Let me echo Rafal; you should find their reasoning as useful as your
>> > own as long as they are as reliable as you. They need not be perfect.
>>
>> Yes, correct. Sorry. I was thinking of a perfect Bayesian trying to use
>> the results of another Bayesian (who must therefore be perfect).
>>
>> I do think you require certainty of honesty, though (or am I mistaken?).
>
> The results are that you cannot knowingly disagree. If you do not think
> they are honest, then you do not know their opinion, and so you can
> disagree with what they say, since you do not think that is what they
> believe.
Right, of course. Good point. It's not even a matter of "discussion"; I
should revise if I see evidence that an equally metarational Bayesian
reasoner *thinks* X, whether or not that evidence is in the form of a
verbal statement to that effect. Though there must be two-way knowledge
before you actually get the "you cannot agree to disagree" effect.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 07:15:52 MDT