viking_math on COVID-19 originated from a lab-related …

viking_math

LessWrong author writing on Bayesian reasoning and uncertainty

So, they do not have any evidence that, across all cases when researchers might try to add an FCS to a virus, they use a “12 nucleotide clean insertion” 1 time out of 10. They simply provide a guess, based on their own lack of knowledge. This is exactly the error described above: For all they actually know, the true frequency of this behavior could be 1/1,000, an error of 100x, or it could be even worse. It is simply not valid to claim strong evidence for no other reason than your own certainty.

AI Verified (Jan 10, 2026)

Source:

viking_math, "The false confidence theorem and Bayesian reasoning," LessWrong, January 10, 2026.

3mo ago

Policy proposals and claims

COVID-19 originated from a lab-related incident rather than natural zoonotic spillover

votes Against

Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

AI Verified Relevant: the source context shows this quote is specifically criticizing Rootclaim’s COVID-origins evidence claimed to favor a lab leak, and the author says that from this lack of knowledge one "must remain uncertain." That makes a determinate stance on the full statement—most likely abstention or opposition to confident lab-origin claims—substantially more likely. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz/the-false-confidence-theorem-and-bayesian-reasoning)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

AI Verified The quote rejects a key pro-lab-leak argument as a mere "guess" and says it is "not valid to claim strong evidence" from that uncertainty; in the article, this is presented as "the central error that Rootclaim made in their lab-leak argument," and the author says the judges reached "the correct conclusion," so the author is most likely opposing the lab-origin claim rather than supporting it. The limitation is that the quote itself attacks one evidential step, not by itself a full case for zoonosis. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz/the-false-confidence-theorem-and-bayesian-reasoning)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

AI Verified Confirmed. The supplied LessWrong URL is a post titled "The false confidence theorem and Bayesian reasoning," attributed on-page to viking_math and dated 10th Jan 2026; the submitted text appears there verbatim across two consecutive paragraphs at lines 60-61, ending with "It is simply not valid to claim strong evidence for no other reason than your own certainty." ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz/the-false-confidence-theorem-and-bayesian-reasoning)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

replying to viking_math

Other opinions from viking_math

See all

viking_math votes Against

Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question

In Rootclaim’s most recent COVID origins analysis, the single strongest piece of evidence is “12 nucleotides clean insertion,” which they claim is 20x more likely in lab leak (after out-of-model correction). [...] So, they do not have any evidence th...

more AI Verified source (Jan 10, 2026)