You might find this 2009 LW post by @ESYudkowsky "What do we mean by rationality?" to be useful:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RcZCwxFiZzE6X7nsv/what-do-we-mean-by-rationality …
-
-
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
I never asked Eliezer directly but assume he must have gotten those definitions from the decision science literature (which includes parts of economics, philosophy, psychology and comp sci relevant to modeling normative decision making) bc that's how that literature uses the word
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
This article by
@lukeprog cites more of the relevant decision science literature and does a more thorough job of explaining what they mean by rationality:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hR92kW2ZSvmuca5Nf/improving-human-rationality-through-cognitive-change-intro …1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
The most relevant phrases to how we talk about rationality are probably "normative rationality," "bounded rationality" and "rational choice theory"
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
This passage from Luke's summary is similar to what
@catherineols and I were trying to say earlier today:pic.twitter.com/lZILQAPaS8
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @Meaningness and
Basically, whether our nostrum hits a snag we can intone "bounded rationality" and it is okay.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @juliagalef and
That’s my kneejerk concern here. It’s not that that is a *wrong* idea, it’s that it tends to point in empirically unhelpful directions. Like “limit inference to k deductive steps / n compute cycles.” Not that anyone in the LW sphere advocates that, but it’s what comes to mind 1st
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
I think basically everyone agrees it's hard to know exactly what perfect bounded rationality would look like. We just strongly suspect this is a problem ppl can make at least *some* useful progress on if they try.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @juliagalef @PereGrimmer and
I’m happy with “better” and unhappy with “more nearly perfect.” Maybe this is just nitpicking words! I think it does tend to suggest quite different approaches, though. (In which case, not just nitpicking.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @PereGrimmer and
Might just be too difficult to discuss abstractly. Feels like discussing whether there is an objective standard of Truth that science is approximating, or not? Maybe easier to just point at specific areas of scientific exploration & discuss whether they seem productive or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes… this is the problem with my posting out-of-context bits on twitter. I hope that the Eggplant book will clarify all this, including with a lot of specific examples. Most drawn from specific STEM problems. (AIDS virology, transistor design, permanganate-acrylate synthesis, …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.