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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Meaningness and
I only vaguely know this particular post, but 3 years ago I got the idea that EY had a coherent story on representation and I just had to work out what it was. so god help me I ended up reading a pile of sequences posts, Arbital pages and ancient pdfs...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @JakeOrthwein and
... I was motivated by the fact that sometimes (as in your screenshot) he shows an understanding that representation should ground out in interaction somewhere. But exactly how he wants that to work is hugely contradictory across his writing, and sometime flat out absent...
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @JakeOrthwein and
To be charitable to Yudkowsky, he just made the common, tragic mistake of assuming that the field called “X Science” has some sort of sane agenda for studying X and knows something about X and is the only field that has something to say about X.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
To be charitable to “Cognitive Science,” the clueful people in the field figured out* around 1990 that none of that was true in their case, and it’s been a non-field since. * Well, Dreyfus told them, and eventually some of them listened
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
If you are a bright 16-to-24-year-old, it’s essentially impossible to figure out on your own that field X is bogus; you just assume it’s real because lot of smart famous people do. If you are lucky, you encounter a mentor who points out that it’s nonsense, and do something else
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
There are lots of senior people who can explain to students that cognitive science isn’t a thing. However, Yudkosky was self-taught, so he didn’t get the benefit of that, and just read a lot of papers, and assumed without thinking about it that there was some there there.
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likes
So his understanding of representation was no more incoherent than most; it just reflects the state of the field circa 1990, when the smart people said “oh @#$%, we suddenly realize none of this makes any sense, we’d better find something else to do instead.”
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
This is a failure mode I worry about a lot in myself TBH. I read a tonne across a range of fields but have minimal access to the ghost library.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @DRMacIver @Meaningness and
I think partly the "across a range of fields" helps counteract that a bit because it helps expose one to criticism, but there's almost certainly still some knowledge in my head that is total junk as a result.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.