Well fwiw the point of the essay is that the LW take is seriously misleading and close to the root of how they misunderstand everything.
-
-
-
Replying to @utotranslucence @meditationstuff and
It’s closer to the front of the queue than most of the 475258 unfinished bits! Tx for feedback; helps me prioy
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @utotranslucence and
I'm some combination of another '+1 would read this post' and 'oh god I wasted so much time trying to understand what LW meant by that 3 years ago and never want to think about it again, but would still read this post' :)
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @utotranslucence and
Our intermittent emails about it have been very helpful or very unhelpful depending partly on whether I ever finish it
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
Current framing: the representation/reality relationship is the CENTRAL and unsolvable problem for rationalism. Maps are highly atypical representations: the relationship is much simpler than most.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
LW uses “map” instead of “representation” in order make it seem like the relationship is straightforward *in general*. That hides the central problem on which the whole story founders.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
I think this is semi-deliberate: they found that thinking in terms of “maps” instead of “representations” clarified their thinking considerably, so they went with it. Indeed, it does make the story much more precise & tractable, at the cost of making it much more wrong.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
The essay undermines this by pointing out the even literal maps don’t work anything like the way LW uses the word. There’s tons of nebulosity in there, not just uncertainty or imprecision. (But less nebulosity than with most representations)
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
Maybe this idea about “entanglement” and “mutual information” could focus the criticism a bit? This seems to underpin Yudkowsky’s general conception of representation.pic.twitter.com/i0uqS3McCh
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I don’t think he has a coherent theory. He’s got a swirl of bits of theory-stuff he picked up from reading cogsci unsystematically, and hasn’t realized they are mutually contradictory and can’t be assembled into a workable overall account.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
The point (of my piece) is not to criticize EY, who I don’t consider significant, but the map/territory metaphor, which is much more widespread than LWism. This bit isn’t about maps, so it’s not relevant to this particular essay.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
Mutual information is *also* unworkable as a general theory of representation, but it’s a different one that would need a different critique.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
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.