|
|
|
|
|
|
by hansvm
29 days ago
|
|
|
It's the same idea. The crux of the argument is that the author has a history of bad predictions, so this must also be a bad prediction, or it's at least likely enough to be bad that we done need to invest further analysis into it. I don't think that's necessarily a bad argument style (at this point it's by far the easiest way to argue that a Musk project won't work for example), but you have to be careful with it. In this case, there are only two previous predictions being considered. Suppose the author would have been right 75% of the time given their available information; there was still a >6% chance of those predictions not working out. That's a pretty rough bound for ruling them out just on principle in a world where they do actually know a lot about how AI will progress. There isn't enough "track record" to confidently say much about the author's predictions. |
|
|