osmarks/documentation
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Edit ‘wrong’

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
osmarks 2024-07-12 12:41:40 +00:00 committed by wikimind
parent d188e4226a
commit c1496359a8
1 changed files with 18 additions and 18 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
wrong.myco
View File

@ -2,21 +2,21 @@ If you are reading this page because you have been linked to it in reference to
Due to technical limitations, this page is not currently aware of the particular way in which you are wrong. However, we anticipate that it is one of the following:
* The claim you just made is contradicted by decades of research which you ignored because it does not feel good.
* Your statement is an incoherent jumble of vaguely associated technical terms which does not actually parse into a claim.
* Your reasoning is based on a roughly accurate intuition or approximation which doesn't generalize to the edge case you just used it in.
* The claim you just made is inconsistent with my reading of an obscure paper I happened to see.
* Your argument could only be generated by someone with deep and abiding misunderstandings of physics, maths, reality, etc.
* Your argument only works by word association and equivocation.
* If the claim you made were true, you could easily print money, and you haven't.
* You made a minor grammar error and are thus scheduled for obliteration.
* Your argument relates poorly defined terms in a way which makes no concrete predictions.
* [[gwern]] once offhandedly claimed the opposite.
* Your answer is right, but only because your mistakes didn't fail to cancel out.
* Your values are evidently antithetical to my own and you will need to be paperclipped in time.
* The claim you just made is contradicted by thinking about it for five seconds and basic domain knowledge.
* You uncritically repeated a piece of technical marketing which makes impossible or wildly implausible claims.
* You are trying to solve the wrong problem using the wrong methods based on a wrong model of the world derived from poor thinking and unfortunately all of your mistakes have failed to cancel out.
* A brief Fermi estimate shows that your answer is most likely off by several orders of magnitude.
* The evidence for your claim is based on problematic evaluations, standards or methods of measurement and you have not sufficiently justified them.
* Most arguments are wrong. You made an argument. Therefore, it's probably wrong.
*. The claim you just made is contradicted by decades of research which you ignored because it does not feel good.
*. Your statement is an incoherent jumble of vaguely associated technical terms which does not actually parse into a claim.
*. Your reasoning is based on a roughly accurate intuition or approximation which doesn't generalize to the edge case you just used it in.
*. The claim you just made is inconsistent with my reading of an obscure paper I happened to see.
*. Your argument could only be generated by someone with deep and abiding misunderstandings of physics, maths, reality, etc.
*. Your argument only works by word association and equivocation.
*. If the claim you made were true, you could easily print money, and you haven't.
*. You made a minor grammar error and are thus scheduled for obliteration.
*. Your argument relates poorly defined terms in a way which makes no concrete predictions.
*. [[gwern]] once offhandedly claimed the opposite.
*. Your answer is right, but only because your mistakes didn't fail to cancel out.
*. Your values are evidently antithetical to my own and you will need to be paperclipped in time.
*. The claim you just made is contradicted by thinking about it for five seconds and basic domain knowledge.
*. You uncritically repeated a piece of technical marketing which makes impossible or wildly implausible claims.
*. You are trying to solve the wrong problem using the wrong methods based on a wrong model of the world derived from poor thinking and unfortunately all of your mistakes have failed to cancel out.
*. A brief Fermi estimate shows that your answer is most likely off by several orders of magnitude.
*. The evidence for your claim is based on problematic evaluations, standards or methods of measurement and you have not sufficiently justified them.
*. Most arguments are wrong. You made an argument. Therefore, it's probably wrong.