Hacker News Reader

>But we don't have to take all claims which may potentially be true one day equally seriously, or ascribe them equal weight (and thus, we are not required to act on all claims).

No one is saying that. I am saying they deserve non zero consideration.

View on HN

No, but I am arguing that - from my perspective - the appropriate weight for those claims, fantastical as they are, would be zero consideration.

>No, but I am arguing that - from my perspective - the appropriate weight for those claims, fantastical as they are, would be zero consideration.

This is an unsupported and imo crazy position to hold. Bordering on evil.

As much as Russell's teapot. I mean the teapot itself, not the analogy. Non zero for philosophers, priests or cognitive scientists, practically zero for the general public while conversations with AI always start with a human asking the AI and never the other way around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com