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
this is interesting, but does one need to have an account of how exactly representation works in order to say "the map is not the territory" (i.e. particular representations can fail to be useful or accurate)?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @drossbucket and
The problem is that the map metaphor is (deliberately?) misleading when taken as a prototype for representation in general. The ways that maps fail are dissimilar to, and much simpler than, the ways most other representations fail (when they do).
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket and
oh? how does that work? a LITERAL map fails if it's missing a feature you care about, or if you can't figure out how to read it in time to get where you're going, or...i'm blanking on other reasons
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @Meaningness and
Jake Orthwein Retweeted David Chapman
From elsewhere in this enormous thread: https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/997973314415968257?s=20 …https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/997973884606410752?s=20 …
Jake Orthwein added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Thanks for retrieving that! Here’s some others. I keep finding more, as I mentioned upthread, which is part of why this thing seems to be unfinishable.pic.twitter.com/CKymambrru
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
I’m not sure any of these criticisms about maps land. How about “spaces” instead of “maps”? Plus no assumption of metrics, dimensions... It’s not like he meant 2D (paper) maps...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
“Spaces” is a different metaphor, with a different set of implicit thought-patterns, e.g. axes. Trying to make a theory of representation starting from that metaphor will lead you in a quite different direction and you’ll end up with some PCA story or something.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 4 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.