I thought Truly Part of you is an excellent introduction to rationalism/Bayesianism/Less Wrong philosophy that avoids much use of numbers, graphs, and technical language. So I think it’s more appropriate for the average person, or for people that equations don’t appeal to.
Hmmmm.… that’s an interesting article too, but it focuses on a different
question, the question what knowledge really means, and uses AI concepts to
discuss that (somewhat related to Searle’s Chinese
Roomgedankenexperiment.)
However, I think the article discussed here is a bit more directly connected
to Bayesianism. It’s clear what Bayes Theorem means, but what many people
today mean with Bayesianism, is somewhat of a loose extrapolation of that --
or even just a metaphor.
I think the article does a good job at explaining the current use.
I thought Truly Part of you is an excellent introduction to rationalism/Bayesianism/Less Wrong philosophy that avoids much use of numbers, graphs, and technical language. So I think it’s more appropriate for the average person, or for people that equations don’t appeal to.
Does anyone who meets that description agree?
And could someone ask Alicorn if she prefers it?
Hmmmm.… that’s an interesting article too, but it focuses on a different question, the question what knowledge really means, and uses AI concepts to discuss that (somewhat related to Searle’s Chinese Room gedankenexperiment.)
However, I think the article discussed here is a bit more directly connected to Bayesianism. It’s clear what Bayes Theorem means, but what many people today mean with Bayesianism, is somewhat of a loose extrapolation of that -- or even just a metaphor.
I think the article does a good job at explaining the current use.