The main question for my readers now is probably “what even is this supposed thing ‘metarationality’? does it exist? why should I care about it?” So I see step 1 as pointing out as clearly as possible what it is, which involves pointing out how it’s different from rationality.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
For anyone who holds rationality as a religion, that’s inevitably going to be confrontive, even if I emphasize that metarationality is in no way opposed to rationality, and indeed that neither can operate without the other *at all*.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
see I think it's things like this "people who hold rationality as a religion", that make it hard to parse for specifically rationalists that you'd want to make the transition. I think this reads as outright insulting to them (not to me, I fully get the point you're making)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @againstutopia @xuenay
That point is well-taken, thank you! OTOH, “this is a silly religion” is a widespread assessment of LW rationalism, and I’d like to see that community take it more seriously instead of rejecting it unthinkingly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
HAHA honestly I am with you in that assessment, I was ejected from the church in ~2012 for criticisms of solomonoff induction as justification for the general case of induction this was really more an argument for perspective-taking, but I can't disagree with your assessment
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @againstutopia @xuenay
There needs to be a canonical short clear explanation of "here's why Solomonoff induction is a mathematical curiosity that has no bearing on anything real" that could be pointed at whenever it comes up. I've been tempted to write one, but my queue is already infinite...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
@ProfJayDaigle, might you be implored to write something like this?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Something like that is in my queue, actually--look at how I end my post on Bayesian inference. I'm not sure I'll land exactly where you would on the issue, and I certainly don't think it will be the canonical anything: I'm an interested amateur here, not an expert.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProfJayDaigle @Meaningness and
But I do think Solomonoff induction is both theoretically interesting and much less practically useful than some people give it credit for. (Of course, as a mathematician, "theoretically interesting" is enough to make it, well, interesting).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, I found it interesting enough to take a graduate seminar in it, which was one of best mathematical experiences I’ve had. The math is gorgeous and I leveled up my proof ability during it. (That was in 1982 I think...)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
For me, there would be two hard parts in writing this. One would be deciding how much detail to go into (= who the audience is, roughly). It’d be hard for me to keep it to a reasonable length and prevent it turning into a textbook.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @ProfJayDaigle and
The other is, it would take some research to address the “yeah ok it’s uncomputable but we can approximate it” line. My intuition is there should be a strong theorem saying “no you can’t” but I don’t think that existed in 1982.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ProfJayDaigle and
Chaitin may have such a theorem but I’ve read only summaries of his work and don’t remember seeing exactly that. I’d also feel I had investigate Scmidthuber’s stuff, which I’m pretty sure is wishful thinking but I don’t actually know.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.