Search Ideas
1824 ideas match your query.:
Similarly, it’s likely that because certain people prevented the means of error correction through history we are not immortal and exploring the stars by now.
Replace ‘through’ with ‘throughout’.
Overall, you’d benefit from running your post through a tool like Grammarly. It will point out mistakes around grammar, punctuation, spelling etc and help you fix them.
Similarly, it’s likely that because certain people prevented the means of error correction through history we are not immortal and exploring the stars by now.
You got that from Deutsch. Just quote the corresponding passage from BoI chapter 9:
[I]f any of those earlier experiments in optimism had succeeded, our species would be exploring the stars by now, and you and I would be immortal.
As I recall, though, he published an erratum on the BoI website about this passage. Might be worth looking into.
Similarly, it’s likely that because certain people prevented the means of error correction through history we are not immortal and exploring the stars by now.
I don’t think that’s a valid use of the word ‘likely’. This quote isn’t about the probability calculus. I’d use the word ‘plausible’ instead.
I'd even go so far to say not wanting to be a billionaire is wrong.
Add ‘as’ after ‘far’. Add ‘that’ after ‘say’.
Some people claim that the fact that billionaires exist is immoral.
The part ‘that the fact that’ sounds awkward. Just say ‘Some people claim billionaires shouldn’t exist.’
Such as death being the only reason that life is “precious” (there are other great reasons).
The word ‘other’ implies that death is a great reason.
It can also be immoral if the invested resources could have led to a greater error correction.
Remove the word ‘a’.
As more people consume short-form video content and realistic AI image and video generation becomes possible demand for this kind of software is exploding.
Add hyphen between ‘AI’ and ‘image’. Add comma after ‘possible’. Replace ‘is exploding’ with ‘explodes’.
(Peter Thiel famously proclaimed this in his book Zero to One).
Book titles are commonly italicized.
Building another AI headshot app wouldn’t be a great idea if the demand for AI headshots would be shrinking rapidly.
If the demand were shrinking, not ‘would be’.
(Peter Thiel famously proclaimed this in his book Zero to One).
Period should go inside the parentheses.
In a demand constrained market—yes.
Add hyphen between ‘demand’ and ‘constrained’.
The most fundamental tenant of morality is to not remove the means of problem-solving and error correction.
Tenet, not tenant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/tenant-vs-tenet-difference-usage
The most fundamental tenant of morality is to not remove the means of problem-solving and error correction.
Should credit Deutsch.
If society hinders a scientist from inventing and distributing a cure for cancer that is deeply immoral.
Add a comma after ‘cancer’.
[…] and threatened me to damage my reputation.
Drop ‘me’. It should say ‘and threatened to damage my reputation.’
Most people hold fundamentally wrong ideas about morality. This includes those that copying business ideas is moral, that death is moral, that the existence of billionaires is wrong, and that not helping others is immoral.
The part “This includes those that” doesn’t sound right grammatically. You could instead write: ‘Most people hold fundamentally wrong ideas about morality. They think that copying business ideas is (im?)moral, that death is moral, …’
Most people hold fundamentally wrong ideas about morality. This includes those that copying business ideas is moral […]
Don’t you mean immoral?
This is largely a duplicate of #1633. You’d want to avoid repeating ideas.
Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
So the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.
Criticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?