I mostly do support the parts which are reinventions / relatively straightforward consequence of active inference. For some reason I don’t fully understand it is easier for many LessWrongers to reinvent their own version (cf simulators, predictive models) than to understand the thing.
On the other hand I don’t think many of the non-overlapping parts are true.
I mostly do support the parts which are reinventions / relatively straightforward consequence of active inference. For some reason I don’t fully understand it is easier for many LessWrongers to reinvent their own version (cf simulators, predictive models) than to understand the thing.
On the other hand I don’t think many of the non-overlapping parts are true.
Well, the best way to understand something is often to (re)derive it. And the best way to make sure you have actually understood it is to explain it to somebody. Reproducing research is also a good idea. This process also avoids or uncovers errors in the original research. Sure, the risk is that your new explanation is less understandable than the official one, but that seems more like a feature than a bug to me: It might be more understandable to some people. Diversity of explanations.