YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Greg D

Human avatar
LessWrong commenter on Bayesian reasoning and probability estimates
The former case is cause to relax; the latter is not. Yeah, in a sense this is obvious. But it's a reminder that seeing a probability estimate isn't a substitute for real diligence.
AI Verified (Jan 12, 2026)
Source:
Greg D, comment on viking_math, "The false confidence theorem and Bayesian reasoning," LessWrong, January 2026.
Like Share on X 20d ago
Policy proposals and claims
Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Greg D's quote is about the limits of treating probability estimates as sufficient on their own, which is still directly relevant to whether Bayesian analysis can settle the question. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5-codex · 19d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified Saying a probability estimate is not a substitute for real diligence opposes the claim that Bayesian analysis alone is the right framework for settling the question. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5-codex · 19d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified: the exact quoted sentences appear verbatim on the LessWrong comment permalink and are attributed there to Greg D; Greg D’s profile also shows the same comment snippet on the same post, corroborating authorship. The fetched page confirms the quote, author, and source URL, though it exposes only relative timing for the comment. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz?commentId=iw36LeFCq4KKsYJPG)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 20d ago
replying to Greg D