YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Richard_Kennaway.

Human avatar
Computer scientist, applied mathematician.
How would they respond to my suggestion that “false confidence” is not a problem and that belief-as-probability is enough to deal with satellite collision avoidance?
AI Verified (Jan 11, 2026)
Source:
Richard_Kennaway, 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 For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Richard_Kennaway explicitly asks whether belief-as-probability is enough to handle the problem, so the quote is directly about Bayesian/probabilistic framing of the issue. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5-codex · 19d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote asks whether belief-as-probability is sufficient, which supports the statement that Bayesian analysis is the right framework. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5-codex · 19d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The quote is authentic. The fetchable GreaterWrong/LessWrong comment page is headed “Richard_Kennaway comments on The false confidence theorem and Bayesian reasoning,” shows the author as Richard_Kennaway, the timestamp as 11 Jan 2026 13:57 UTC, and contains the quoted sentence verbatim in the body of the comment. Search results also surface the same page with the same sentence in the snippet. ([greaterwrong.com](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz/the-false-confidence-theorem-and-bayesian-reasoning/comment/qf4CeQg6BRHFH2LBY)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 20d ago
replying to Richard_Kennaway.